However, the court insisted that the plaintiff should set up a prima facie case of discrimination, if she adopted the indirect approach (McDonnell Douglas burden–shifting method). To face this burden she must prove that she was pregent and her employer was aware of it, she was doing her duty without anty fault but she was discharged and similarly situated employees not in the protected class were treated more favorably.
Moreover The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 empowers the eligible employees who takes the leave under this Act to be restored to the original position or the position equivalent to the former one. By this, the FMLA restrict the power of any employee to interfere ,restrain or deny such rights of the employee. (Lewis, 2004)(10) Title VII of 1964 Act specifies that the employment opportunity should not be denied to any person on the ground of race, percieved racial group and race related charecteristics like color,facial features etc.
Such person can not be discriminated because of their married status or association with someone of particular race or color. The Act enumerates that it would be unlawful if there is any kind of discrimination occurs while recruiting, hiring, promoting and transfering a person of different race. The work assignments, the work environment, performance measurements, job training, discipline and discharge, wages and benefits and any other types of privileges of the employment Equal Employment Opportunity 6 should not be denied to any person because of the fact thst he is of another race.
The Title VII does not any form of intentioanl discrimination but alos the kind of neutral job policies that may affect the persons of certain race. The Title also prohibits Harassment/Hostile Work Environment,any discrimination in Compensation and Other Employment Terms,privileges and classification of employees on the basis of Race. (Grofman, 2000) Apart from this, certain cases show that the court has taken different views on this issue. In Allen Vs Potter,(12) the court held that management was not liable for the act of workers who made some racial comments on black .
In another case Smith Vs North Eastern III Univ. (13) the court cleared the view that a hearsay harrassment could not validate the claim of racial harrassment. In this case, a staff overheard some racial insults made by University Public safety and the court held that such second hand harrassment could not amount to an objectively hostile work enviroment. Religious Discrimination The Title VII directs the employers not to treat employees or applicants more or less favourably based on their religious beliefs or practices subjected to the warranted relgious accomodation.
The employees should not be forced to participate in any religious activities as the condition for the employment opportunity. The actual religious practices of the employees should be accomodated in a proper manner by providing flexible scheduling, voluntary substutions and job reassignments. The employers should allow the employee to hold a religious expression if such expression would not cause any hardship to the others. It is also the duty of the employer to keep surveillance over any religious harrassment against the particular section of the employees.