Rasheeda Rasinudia and Muslim Attire

Ms. Rasinudia appears to have a valid claim because it meets the four elements of religious discrimination. She is a bone fide member of a religious group and has a belief which is in conflict with the employer’s policy. She alerted Axel Rental Cars of the conflict and they failed to attempt an accommodation for her. And finally, adverse action was taken against her by not hiring her for this reason. Axel Rental cars may attempt a defense that accommodating Ms. Rasinudia would create an undue hardship for them by having to provide a different uniform than what is standard to their policy but as was found in EEOC v. Brinks Inc., the company has a duty to try to accommodate different attire that may not be in accordance with their uniform policy. The defense is unlikely to hold up because the cost of a somewhat different uniform would be considered negligible and Ms. Rasinudia could be asked to assist in covering the cost of the necessary adjustment. Additionally, there is no cost associated with wearing a headscarf. In the Brinks case, the employee offered to bare the burden for a different style of uniform and that would serve as a good reference in making the accommodation in this case. Ms. Rasinudia is more likely to prevail because Axel did not even try to find a reasonable accommodation as is required under Title VII, which would allow her to wear a head scarf and dark attire.

B. Talisha Montobe - colorful dress

Ms. Montobe’s claim that she was discriminated against because of her national origin only meets a few of the four elements required. We know that Ms. Montobe is a member of a protected class as she is African-American with her parents emigrating from Sudan. We must assume that Ms. Montobe is qualified for the position, and adverse action was taken against her by not hiring her for the position. Finally, it is unclear as to whether other employees not in her protected class were treated more favorably, but we must assume that others...