Religious Discrimination. Mary Tiano, a devout Roman Catholic, ...

[jman1234]

Religious Discrimination. Mary Tiano, a devout Roman Catholic, worked for Dillard Department Stores, Inc (Dillard's), in Phoenix, Arizona. Dillard's considered Tiano a productive employee because her sales exceeded 200,000 a year. At the time, the store gave its managers the discretion to grant unpaid leave to employees but prohibited vacations or leave during the holiday season (October through December). Tiano felt that she had a calling to go on a pilgrimage in October 1988 to Medjugorje, Yugoslavia, where some persons claimed to have had visions of the Virgin Mary. The Catholic Church had not designated the site an official pilgrimage site, the visions were not expected to be stronger in October, and tours were available at other times. The store managers denied Tiano's request for leave, but she had a nonrefundable ticket and left anyway. Dillard's terminated her employment. For a year, Tiano searched for a new job and did not attain the level of her Dillard's salary for four years. She filed a suit in a federal district court against Dillard's, alleging religious discrimination in violation of Title VII. Can Tiano establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination? Explain.

Question 2

The two general classifications of authority an agent can possess are general authority and implied authority.
 a. True
  b. False
  Indicate whether the statement is true or false

[yasmin]

Answer to Question 1

Religious discrimination
The court found in favor of Tiano, holding, among other things, that she established a prima facie case of religious discrimination. The court awarded Tiano lost wages for the time she was unemployed. Dillard's appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the judgment of the lower court. The appellate court held that Tiano did not establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination. The evidence shows only a bona fide religious belief that she needed to go to Medjugorje at some time; she failed to prove the temporal mandate to go to Yugoslavia at that particular time. The court recognized that employees do not have an inflexible duty to reschedule their religious commitments. When an employee claims that religious beliefs require a particular pilgrimage, however, the employee must prove that this mandate is part of a bona fide religious belief. Otherwise, the employer is forced to accommodate the employee's personal preference (the timing of the trip). Had Tiano testified that the visions of the Virgin Mary were expected to be more intense in October, for example, or that the Catholic Church urged her to go at that time, she would have had a stronger case. The court concluded that Tiano could not satisfy one crucial element of her prima facie case: conflict between her religious belief and employment duties.

Answer to Question 2

FALSE