8/7/2019 MEMORANDUM jellivie h. manansala

1/2

MEMORANDUM

TO : Miss Sharona S. Calica

FROM : Jellivie H. Manansala

SUBJECT : Decision Memo for Mr. Sandeet Singh

DATE : 31 January 2011

A particular instances lead Mr. Singh to bring a court action is that a moment a company

informed him that there would be no exception for religious reasons although he is the most

qualified applicant. Since Mr. Singh is a devoted member of a certain religion he thought that

this particular case discriminates his beliefs and practices. If only Mr. Singh inquire first or know

first the policy or limitation of the company before he applied for a certain position, he could just

look for another job that is favorable to him and in his religion in the first place.

If we were talking about political issue, Yes. There is discrimination because the law states

the right of applicant or employee against their employer provided under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act which prohibits employers from engaging in religious discrimination that is

discriminating based on applicant or employees religion. Therefore, Peabody violated what is

stated under the law.

With respect to the political issue,the Peabody violates the law, but in companys side, no.

For having a year of their business existence. Peabody consistently enforced the uniformity of

grooming policy and that is the legal interest of legitimate employer which could not easily

change just for the expense of another although religion is involved. Maintaining their policy

reflects restaurant good public image. So, it is more practical not to hire applicant who couldnt

even comply the fulfillment of requirements whether its for religious reason or not if he could

8/7/2019 MEMORANDUM jellivie h. manansala

2/2

only the reason to destroy the uniformity of the grooming policy. And besides, the renewal of

policy may lead to mismanagement and employees would find difficult to adjust or adapt to a

new system or policy to be implemented.

Considering the fact that employers are not required to adhere to the beliefs and practices of

employees. Anti- discrimination laws only stop us from refusing to fire or to hire applicant based

on religious beliefs. However, if his beliefs go against our policies we do have an option to

refuse him for not complying as long as we also refuse those who do not comply for non

religious reasons as well.

If I were a judge I would give my support to Mr. Singh. Why?, because as I have said above.

Peabody clearly violates the Federal law. The law that prohibits employer to forbid applicants or

employee to express theri faith. For example, not cutting their hair, wearing certain clothing or

religious items or telling others of their belief. I could not find any law which protects Peabody

to win the court because its purpose of refusing Mr. Singh is for company benefits only and

besides Mr. Singh only applying for a managers position not a server so he does not have direct

contact with food so they could still maintain the sanitary condition of the restaurant.