The Discrimination of Marshawn Demur Examined

The Discrimination of MarShawn DeMur Examined

The Discrimination of MarShawn DeMur Examined

Most organizations have experienced a form of discrimination.  Dipboye and Colella noted, “Aside from being ethically wrong, discrimination is also illegal” (as cited in Triana & García & Colella, 2010, p. 817).  As examined here, the case of MarShawn DeMur (Maalik) displays a clear example of racial and religious bias.

Background Information

Diversification brings differences in race and religious beliefs, which can cause workplace tension.  This condition created a lack of understanding and misperceptions, which resulted in a discrimination case.  Treton Comunications, midwest facility has a low number of racial and ethnic minorities.  MarShawn became part of that statistic by working as an operations manager for which he received a positive annual feedback.  After hours, MarShawn decided to pursue his religious beliefs.  His supervisor, Clive Jenkins, highly scrutinized MarShawn’s vacation for religious reasons, and his coworkers questioned his congregation.  His name change to Maalik prompted significant teasing and bullying from his coworkers.  Once reported, human resources promptly addressed it.  Although the tormenting seemed resolved, his supervisor denied him a promotion, which promoted a formal complaint.

Legal Issues and Obstacles Possibly Encountered

In the scenario, it presented several legal issues and obstacles for discrimination.  For example, management tolerated the bullying and harassment from his supervisor and fellow employees.  Also the organization accepted, as a common practice, the immature attitudes and unprofessional behaviors.  The staff frequently questioned and ridiculed Maalik’s religious beliefs, and the supervisor made numerous inappropriate comments.  By not handling the issues and concerns appropriately, the organization appeared to condone the behavior.  Finally, the promotion selection caused a perception of bias.

Federal, State, or Local laws Broken

Numerous laws and their judicial interpretations created by state and federal agencies prohibited discrimination in several forms (Cascio, p. 77).  The circumstances of the Maalik case could have potentially broke several laws.  First, the situation could infringe on Maaliks rights because under The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution courts may view the discrimination as slavery or involuntary servitude.  Also it may have broken the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871 because it appeared that Clive Jenkins purposely discriminated against the employee.  Furthermore, it could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the organization appeared to consider the outsider based on his religion and not necessarily his work qualifications.  Additionally, this law protects against harassment, which the employees engaged in against Maalik.  Also management’s actions regarding the employee relations could have violated the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, which forbids discrimination in this area.