Is it racial discrimination - company wide email disparaging white people A friend of mine works at a religious organization as an employee. They are also a naturalized citizen, who is white, but is of a minority ethnic group (for background). The org has sent out several emails over time focusing on racism, but with the implication that white people are the sole problem of all racism. (which, let me be clear, here in the US, there is of course centuries of legitimate beef!) The issue being that they are receiving these messages and feel insulted and as if they're being disparaged by the company itself, solely for their race. This person is open minded and believes that there are issues with equality in the country, but receives these emails and believes from time to time that they are being told that all white people are a problem, rather than focusing on issues with inclusivity and equality or racism in general, just very specifically focusing on white people. They recently received a company wide meeting invite for a meeting discussing the concept of whiteness and how it impacts an organization and individuals, going on to liken &quot;whiteness&quot; itself to white supremacy. My friend wrote a response, asking not to be included on future meeting invites, explaining that the one in question and others have made it feel as though their 'whiteness' was a problem, and that they felt it was a pejorative term and would like to not receive remarks like this in the future. The business later sent another email that includes some description of the meeting itself, that it is sent to an organization wide distribution list and will not have an ability for people to opt out (therefore, my interpretation being, they are ignoring their request to stop receiving the offensive remarks in these emails into the future). It goes on to state that the next session will be on White Fragility, and states that &quot;by definition&quot;, racism is based on the concept of whiteness, which is enforced by power and violence. It has a definition of 'white fragility' later on that paired with the usage of the term in the email seems somewhat offensive... in the same way that hearing 'black fragility' or other combinations of the words would seem, from the negative connotations of the word fragility, of course pejorative to whatever group is paired with it. My question is... This seems like a form of harassment and discrimination. Is it? Are there additional steps they should take to address the issue? I've told my friend they need to find a lawyer and consider whether they have a case, as they'd included HR and their own manager, as well as the other person who's sending these messages, and are still receiving them. They've told me messages like these have been going out for years and it's been very upsetting having to read them and having to confront them specifically in order to request that they stop receiving them... just to have it continue. They are, of course, very worried they'll lose their job over speaking up over it. **Are religious organizations allowed to discriminate based on race, is this a moot point?** I've seen references on the internet that the supreme court has ruled that religious org's can discriminate based on religion, but I haven't seen on race, such as in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church &amp; Sch. v. E.E.O.C. (2012) (https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/926/discrimination-by-religious-organizations).
This is the overview of employment discrimination by the EEOC (no legal reason for them to specifically put this under &quot;youth&quot;). To &quot;discriminate&quot; against someone means to treat that person differently, or less favorably, for some reason... The laws enforced by EEOC protect you from employment discrimination when it involves: Unfair treatment because of your race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, disability, age (age 40 or older), or genetic information. Harassment by managers, co-workers, or others in your workplace, because of your race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, disability, age (age 40 or older), or genetic information. A subtype of harassment is &quot;hostile environment harassment&quot;. See the EEOC page on harassment. It is unwelcome conduct that is based on race... Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Also it is illegal to punish a person for complaining about harassment. On the face of it, this could constitute racial harassment. The EEOC suggests that it is illegal here, in their FAQ Are White employees protected from race discrimination even though they are not a minority? Yes. You are protected from different treatment at work on the basis of your race, whether you are White, Black, or some other race. Although this is an advisory from the Dep't of Interior and not the EEOC, it is reasonable to assume that it was at least minimally vetted by competent lawyers who know discrimination law. What is prohibited is Unwelcome conduct, verbal or physical, including intimidation, ridicule, insult, comments, or physical conduct, that is based on an individual’s protected status or protected activities under Personnel Bulletin 18-01, when the behavior can reasonably be considered to adversely affect the work environment, or an employment decision affecting the employee is based upon the employee’s acceptance or rejection of such conduct (where race is a protected status). I don't know of any case law that establishes for certain that what you describe is illegal. The ministerial exception allows a religion to follow the rules of the religion in hiring its ministers, but otherwise doesn't exempt religions from prohibitions against discrimination.
It may be discrimination; not all discrimination is illegal. Details vary by jurisdiction, for example discrimination on the following bases is illegal in Australia: race colour sex sexual preference age physical or mental disability marital status family or carer’s responsibilities pregnancy religion political opinion national extraction social origin Tobacco use or non-use doesn't make the list. That's the legal position; if you want advice on how to handle the workplace stuff post your question on the Workplace Stack Exchange.
Businesses can discriminate against their customers on any basis they like provided that such discrimination is not on an illegal basis like race, sex or age. They do not have to serve you if they don't want to.
Has Bob been treated less favourably than Alice by this establishment with respect to his committed philosophical worldview of opposing fascism and all its associations and forms? Has Bob thus been unlawfully discriminated against? No. There is no discrimination law engaged here by the retailer asking if its customer would like to donate to the Red Cross Crisis in Ukraine Appeal or such and not asking if the customer would like to donate to any other appeal.
Your bank is not discriminating against you. Your reasons for not having the required amount of funds pass thru your account has nothing to do with your marital status. In general, it's problematic to make a chain-of-cause-and-effect argument for discrimination. For example. Your argument is analogous to the following. My boss fired me for being late to work. But I was late to work because my child woke up late and missed the school bus; so I had to drive her to school. Therefore, my boss fired me for having children. That type of chain-of-cause-and-effect argument for discrimination just doesn't hold water. It is non sequitur and a requires a leap of logic.
In this context, the phrase "there are no equitable considerations that would require the court to reduce or deny reimbursement for the parents" largely refers to defenses to claims arising under the law of equity as applied historically in the chancery courts of England, and more recently, to claims of a type that would have been brought in equity courts if there were still a separate equity court system. Two of the more common equitable defenses are "unclean hands" and "laches". The equitable defense of "unclean hands" applies when the person seeking relief has engaged in misconduct of some kind in the same transaction. For example, if "the student was denied a FAPE at their public school placement" because the student had previously been expelled for beating up another kid (especially if this had nothing to do with the reason that a FAPE is needed) or because the parents ignored a deadline for filing the application for a FAPE at their public school of which they had reasonable advanced notice, that student's parents might be denied reimbursement under the doctrine of unclean hands. The equitable defense of "laches" applies when unreasonable delay on the part of the person seeking relief causes prejudice to the person from whom relief is sought even in the absence of a date certain deadline or before a date certain deadline expires. For example, suppose that "the private school was an appropriate placement" but it had tuition three times as high as two other private schools in town. If the other two less expensive private schools had vacancies for months after the student was denied a FAPE at their public school placement, but had no room for new students a week before school started leaving only the much more expensive private school with any vacancies, the request might be denied, or limited to the amount that would have been paid if the parents had applied to other private schools more promptly, under the doctrine of laches. Other equitable defenses include the duty to mitigate damages (e.g. there might be reimbursement for private school tuition, but not for late fees and interest that could have been avoided), impossibility and impracticability (e.g. no public or private placement is capable of addressing the fundamental problem that the child is in a catatonic state), acts of god/force majeure (e.g. the student was denied a FAPE because the school was destroyed in a hurricane and the school district had to shut down the schools for everyone for a semester), implied waiver or estoppel (e.g. after the student was denied a FAPE the student was enrolled for regular classes at that public school without complaint and without trying to find a private school placement), spoliation (e.g. the records needed to determine eligibility were intentionally destroyed by the applicant before the hearing), fraud as a defense and not a claim (e.g. the parents lied in their reimbursement application), payment (e.g. the student was denied a FAPE by two schools and already received reimbursement from another one and is not entitled to a double recovery), release or accord and satisfaction (e.g. a settlement agreement was already reached with the school denying reimbursement or agreeing to a particular reimbursement).
Almost certainly not. See, e.g., Lopez-Mendez v. Lexmark Intern., Inc., 680 F.Supp.2d 357, 375 (D.P.R. 2010) &quot;This incident, however, is not sufficient to constitute direct evidence of discriminatory animus...[Defendant's agent]'s anecdote could be interpreted as emphasizing the importance of a positive attitude, rather than plaintiff's interpretation that it expressed a preference for younger male employees...This benign interpretation seems more plausible...In light of these facts, there does not appear to be any evidence on the record that gives a 'high degree of assurance' that discriminatory animus was behind the decision to terminate plaintiff&quot; (emphasis added). NOTE: OP's original question was simply whether listing 'positive attitude' on a job description was illegal. OP has now changed the question to whether making employment decisions based on a depressed individual's lack of a positive attitude is illegal. Although I have great sympathy for those with mental illness and personally wish the law were different, my answer is still that this is almost certainly legal. Another example of a court finding attitude to be a legitimate reason upon which to base employment decisions is: Martin v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 126 F.Supp.2d 809 (M.D. Pa 2000). In this case, the court accepted as a legitimate reason for promoting one individual over another that the promoted individual &quot;demonstrated good interpersonal skills.&quot; Id. at 817. A third example is Lloyd v. Swifty Transp., Inc., 552 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2009). In this case, the Seventh Circuit explicitly noted that &quot;[t]he employer, not a court, determines what functions are essential, and we will not second-guess that decision.&quot; Id. at 601. It then went on to affirm dismissal of the plaintiff's ADA claim because the employer &quot;said that lead drivers must have knowledge of the mechanics of the trucks and be able to manage the other drivers on the truck through a positive attitude and ability to get along well with others. But the supervisors in charge of hiring lead drivers testified without contradiction that [the plaintiff] had a negative attitude that drew complaints from other drivers.&quot; Id. at 601-602 (emphasis added). After a relatively exhaustive search, I've found no case to counter these pretty clear statements that basing employment decisions on 'attitude' is legal. FURTHER NOTE: OP has now modified the question again to add the qualification that the lack of a positive attitude &quot;doesn't prevent the employee from doing their job.&quot; IF this were actually true, then the answer likely becomes that illegal discrimination has occurred because then the employee would be 'otherwise qualified' (a key phrase in employment law litigation). BUT, there is an inherent contradiction in premises in OP's question now because if X is a requirement of a job, and Y employee cannot do X because of Z, then Z is preventing Y employee from doing that job. In other words, if a job requires a positive attitude, then one can't do that job without a positive attitude. Ultimately, what OP's question is really trying to get at is 'what if the employer makes 'positive attitude' a job requirement, but I don't think it should be a job requirement?' Unfortunately, there's almost certainly no legal recourse for this as long as it's a legal job requirement because, to reiterate the 7th Circuit, &quot;[t]he employer, not a court, determines what functions are essential, and [a court] will not second-guess that decision.&quot; Id. at 601.
According to the EEOC, in general: An employee cannot be forced to participate (or not participate) in a religious activity as a condition of employment. But how religious is this party? Simply calling it a "Christmas party" (or "holiday party") doesn't really make it a "religious activity". Many nonreligious people celebrate Christmas as a general holiday. If the party is nonreligious, then your religion is mostly irrelevant, whether or not it celebrates a winter holiday. The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion. So, they'd likely have to serve something you could eat if they're serving food, as that would be a reasonable accommodation. (But you'd have to inform them of your needs beforehand; asking them to go out and buy something during the party would probably not be "reasonable".)