Echard | 1

Elyse Echard
PL 311 Final Essay
Dr. Trew
May 5, 2014

Keith,
There are certain requirements both employees and employers seek when
discerning a job or job candidate. For employers, it is important to find prospective staff
who demonstrates a sense of passion, integrity, respect, and boosterism, while also
providing efficient work for their organization. In a similar fashion, an employee seeks
to gain satisfaction in their day-to-day work activities, acceptance from their colleagues,
earn sufficient wages, make recognizable contributions within their company, and
possibly receive a promotion. In the United States, employment relationships are
presumed to be at-will with the exception of Montana.
To be employed at will means that an employer has the ability to hire and fire
their employees with no just cause. In return, employees hold the right to terminate their
working contracts under this same policy. It is important to note that by dismissing or
demoting an employee, a well-intentioned employer is not denying the right of persons.
Rather they are simply excluding that persons labor from the organization. Although this
law enables the employer to override certain amendments, there are still some
stipulations regarding the policy.
One of the biggest issues employees have when it comes to at-will employment is
the debate regarding free speech. In choosing to take a job, an employee voluntarily

Echard | 2
commits him or herself to certain responsibilities including the knowledge that she is an
at will employee. Many companies have disciplined and terminated employees due to
displaying inappropriate content both on and offline online that contradict company
values. There have been numerous stories reported about employees being fired because
of what they posted online. For example, Delta Airlines fired former flight attendant,
Ellen Simonetti, for posting provocative pictures of herself on her blog while in uniform.
This case is very similar to the circumstances involving your employee, Tim, who had
posted unprofessional pictures of his friends posing on your companys furniture.
Although the medium Ellen and Tim used was personal, it poorly reflects their place of
employment and could even violate company policies. This reasoning also supports your
companys decision to fire Max, after having caught him using his work computer to
watch porn. Even though Max was not on the clock, his behavior did not reflect your
companys values and code of professionalism.
To further justify the voluntariness of EAW contracts it must be noted that there
are reciprocal obligations that both the employer and employee are held responsible. If
an employer is expected to demonstrate a sense of loyalty, trust, and respect to his or her
employees, it is expected that they receive the same amount of respect in return. Under
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) an employer must reasonably
accommodate an employees religious beliefs or practices. This includes such things as
dress, grooming practices, and schedule changes for religious observances. Under this
law, your employee, Jane, could sue you for religious discrimination. A similar case
happened in 2013 involving Hollister and new employee, Anna Zakhlyebayeva. On her
first day at work, Zakhlyebayeva was told to remove a tiny silver cross pendent on her

Echard | 3
necklace, as it didnt fit the companys look policy. The only time an employer is not
responsible for accommodating an employees religious beliefs or practices is when it
compromises workplace safety. Because Janes choice in apparel is not threatening the
well-being of your company, she should be free to sport this garb. Another issue that has
occurred within your company involves employee Geoff. Under the second amendment,
everyone has the right to bear arms. This has caused much controversy between those
parties who are in favor of guns and those who are not. Those who oppose gun control
argue that private ownership of guns is necessary for protecting our liberties. In contrast,
many individuals who are for gun control argue that guns are not safe and the ability to
purchase and carry this kind of weaponry should be made more difficult. It is important
to note that even though the second amendment permits the right for individuals to bear
arms under government law, it does not override the employers right to set rules for
workplace activities. Therefore, your company has the right to enforce company policy and
discipline Geoff under the protection of EAW.

When it comes to EAW, one of the biggest questions regarding the hiring process
involves the right of the employer to match their employees to the characteristics of its
core customers. Many companies have faced lawsuits surrounding allocations of
discrimination for cases regarding race, sex, and even weight. Teen retailer Abercrombie
and Fitch has experienced several lawsuits surrounding this topic over the recent years.
Abercrombie and Fitch has been known for hiring only young, beautiful people for their
sales floor. While the franchise has upset many individuals for only hiring from this pool
of applicants, legally speaking, it is able to do so under the Bona Fide Occupational
Qualifications (BFOQs). The BFOQs are job specifications to which the civil rights laws
do not apply. In a case like Abercrombie and Fitch, the BFOQ defense would assert that

Echard | 4
no cool customer would want to buy their clothes from someone who looks like their
mother or father. In the same way, your company would be protected from potential
lawsuits for turning Ted down for the waiter position.
Although BFOQ allow companies some wiggle room to use appearance and
image of its employees as a way to enhance brand awareness, it is very limited in scope.
BFOQs do not cover race or color and, when it comes to sex, it must only defend cases
regarding authenticity and modesty. Returning back to the example regarding
Abercrombie and Fitch, the company faced a huge lawsuit in 2004 for discriminating
against applicants of the African-American and Asian- American decent. It was reported
that the retailer would deny applicants of this profile, or hire them to work in the stock
room where no one could see them. Furthermore, the company was found to have
promised these individuals with a possible advancement to work on the floor if they
stayed with the company. These promises were never followed through. This is very
similar to the case involving your employee, Ted, who was turned down from
advancement due to his weight. Both Abercrombie and Fitch and your companys
decision to hide away unfit employees is a violation against the Civil Rights Act, which
protects cases of weight and appearance when associated with age and race. Another
case that falls under racial discrimination involves your employee, Lily. Lilys situation
is very similar to the 1994 discrimination case against Texaco. The EEOC discovered
that the financial executives in the company had been belittling minority employees,
referring to them as black jellybeans and prevented them from promotion. This again,
is another form of job discrimination and makes your company a target for severe
consequences.

Echard | 5
Aside from the events surrounding your employee Ted, your companys recent
activity in only hiring Swedish speaking or looking waiters over more qualified
applicants also violates the BFOQs and EEOC. A similar case involving race
discrimination occurred last June with the restaurant, Long Bow Pub & Pantry. The
owner of the Welsh bar was fined a large sum after attempting to hire a staff with
acknowledge of the British culture. In order for both your company and Long Bow Pub
& Pantry to legally have the right to be this selective, two cases would need to be proven:
One, that the ethnicity being emphasized is absolutely the image, look, and theme of your
business. Secondly, that you would experience profit loss or go bankrupt if unable to
implement this culture within your staff. It is important that your company be wary of
the severe consequences associated with job discrimination. It would be in your
companys best interest then to develop an antidiscrimination program that would train
employees to understand the companys goal of eliminating discrimination and
harassment and reinforce the employers values of mutual respect and professionalism in
the workplace.
Finally, the last case dealing with civil rights in the workplace involves sexual
harassment. Sexual harassment is considered to be a form of sexual discrimination that
violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Alan K. Campbell, former director of the
Federal Office of Personnel Management, defines sexual harassment as deliberate or
repeated unsolicited verbal comments, gestures, or physical contract of a sexual nature
which are unwelcomed. Historically, cases involving sexual harassment have proven to
be very costly. For example, Ford Motors was fined $7.75 million and Mitsubishi $34
million for class-action sexual-harassment.

Echard | 6
Sexual harassment can be divided into two categories: quid pro quo and hostile
work environment harassment. Quid pro quo occurs when a supervisor makes a workers
employment opportunities conditional on the employees entering into a sexual
relationship with, or granting sexual favors to, the supervisor. This kind of harassment
has been reported in your own company. Louis had applied, and got denied, the Security
Guard position at your company on the basis that he was HIV positive. Under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, employers are unable to use this kind of information
against prospective employees, and must grant equal opportunity to each candidate.
Furthermore, Louis fell victim to of being harassed by Ken, who had offered him the job
in exchange for sexual favors. By doing so, Ken was depriving Louis of equal treatment
in the hiring process, as well as exploiting power imbalance between himself and Louis.
The second type of harassment, hostile work environment harassment, is
behavioral by nature that is distressing to women. This type of behavior interferes with a
womans ability to perform on the job even when the pressure for giving sexual favors
isnt there. Sexual innuendos, remarks, the posting of pictures of nude women,
unnecessary touching, patting, or other physical conduct all fall under this category of
harassment. Betty has been experiencing this kind of employment under your company
from Alan, the head of security.
In sexual harassment cases, the court examines what a reasonable person would
find offensive. Employees like Betty and Louis who encounter sexually harassing
behavior from other members in the company should make it clear that the behavior is
unwanted. Should the harassment persist, these employees should document the behavior
and report it to the appropriate personnel within the organization. If all internal channels

Echard | 7
are ineffective, employees should seek outside legal parties for assistance. It is important
to note that companies like your own can be held legally liable for cases involving sexual
harassment even if they are unaware of it. Fortunately, a company may be able to escape
these fines if they are able to prove that they took reasonable steps to prevent and correct
the harassment and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the
preventive or corrective procedures established by the company. The key to avoiding
liability under this law is to improve or implement policies prohibiting sexual behavior.
This may include advising employees to stay in contact with appropriate management
personnel when faced with such conduct and providing multiple avenues for an employee
to report harassment.
I hope that you find this letter useful in keeping your company on track. I wish
you and your company the best of luck,

Elyse Echard