Legal Options for Discrimination Based on Political Affiliation

Surname 1
Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
Business Law
Legal Options Available Due to Discrimination Based on Political Affiliation
In a case study, Nesbitt was a young and brilliant laws school graduate. After completion
of his studies, he applied for a job position at Dewey, Gate, and Howe, which is one of the best
laws firms in Pikeville. Nesbitt had a successful interview with Dillan Dewey, who is the
managing partner of the firm. Due to his Nesbitt’s brilliance, the manager agreed that it would be
great to hire him as part of the team. However, after the interview, there was a short conversation
between Dewey and Nesbitt about the political views of each person given that the provincial
elections were nearing. Dewey was a people’s party supporter while Nesbitt did not shy away
from showing strong support for the Freedom party which he was strongly affiliated to. The
interview quickly came to a halt after a short discussion and opinions about the respective
political parties. Two weeks after the interview, Nesbitt received a letter from the manager
indicating that he would not be hired due to his political affiliations and given that 50 % of the
clients of the legal firm belong to the People’s party.
It is a high level of discrimination when a person is treated unfairly due to their political
affiliations. Despite his brilliance and talents, Nesbitt was denied an opportunity to work with the
law firm just because he was a strong supporter of the freedom party. Nesbitt’s political views
became worse when he stated that he was a supporter of a different political party which is
different from what the manager supported.

Surname 2
It is the goal of any organization or firm to recruit the employees who fit the job
specification of a company. Human resource managers always look for valuable talents and
exceptional skills when recruiting or hiring their workforce. Another, main feature that the
organizations look for in employees is the adaptability to the organization's culture and goal
(Besley 345). These goals and culture are oriented towards productivity and profitability of the
business. However, some employers discriminate their employees based on their political
affiliations, which is against the labor and employment laws. An example is a discrimination for
a position just because the manager and the employees have different political believes, as seen
in the case study between Dewey and Nesbitt.
The law protects people from being discriminated from the job position due to the
differences in political views or political affiliations. Therefore, Nesbitt can sue Dewey because
he denied him an equal opportunity as others based on his political stand rather than his abilities
in the workplace (Baert 69). Nesbitt has an option of seeking a legal charge against Dewey since
the labor laws state that the employers are not supposed to discriminate the employees or
candidates based on who they chose to be their political leader or the party they choose to
belong. Every person has the right and freedom to choose the political party for which he is
affiliated.
However, Dewey might be justified to deny Nesbitt an opportunity to work with the firm
if his political affiliations would bring a negative impact to the business. If Nesbitt is a threat to
the success of the business, the organization have no option other than to discriminate him and
deny him a chance to work with the firm (Gift 654). Some of the actions that might cause Dewey
to deny Nesbitt an opportunity to work with the organization are if his political affiliations or
debate lead to the loss of the clients. It worth noting that most of the clients of the firm are

Surname 3
affiliated to the people’s party. That means that Nesbitt can be a threat to the company,
especially if he is always involved in politics without the client’s willingness.
Justification for Smoker Discrimination
If Dewey refused to hire Nesbitt because he was a smoker, the case would change.
Smoking is a vice that presents many health hazards to both active and passive smokers. Second-
Hand smokers are exposed to more health problems that first-hand smokers. For this reason,
smoking is not legalized in the working places. The employment laws persuade employers to
protect their employees from all the dangers that would be harmful or risk their health. It would,
therefore, be the responsibility for Dewey to employ the employees who do not pollute the
working environment of the other employees. This option would make Dewey’s actions to
discriminate Nesbitt from working in the law firm (Garza 31). Although that law states that each
person is supposed to be given an equal opportunity by an organization, it would not be sensible
to provide the smoker’s equal opportunity since they present health threats to other employees.
Therefore, Nesbitt would not have any option to sue the organization for denying him a chance
to work if he was a smoker.
Also, the legal firm managed by Dewey deals with clients who keep coming back for the
good services offered by the firm. Clients establish loyalty due to the quality of the services
offered by a particular organization. Some of the clients are conscious about the health issues
brought about by smoking habits. That would mean that allowing Nesbit to work with the firm
would lower clients’ expectations about the firm. The firm would, in turn, lose the clients who
would mean that the business would not be sustainable (Pattison 29). Therefore, if Nesbitt were a
smoker, denying him, an opportunity would be a better choice for the organization because he
would pose a threat to the business. Despite the brilliance possessed by Nesbitt, the clients might

Surname 4
be unwilling to approach him for the services due to his smoking habits. This would also mean
that the Nesbitt would not be as useful to the organization as compared to the non-smoker
employees.
On the contrary, it can also be argued that the employer is not supposed to deny the
employees the opportunities even if they are smokers. Both smokers and non-smokers have the
right to equal employment opportunities since the priority for an organization is the employee's
capability. Smoking is also not an illegal activity as it is no illegalized by the law. Therefore,
smoking is a lawful private and off-duty activity (Pattison, 29). This follows that the employer's
discrimination of the smokers would be an infringement of the employee's freedom and rights to
engage in a legal off-duty activity. From our case study, Nesbitt is a qualified legal officer since
he had recently graduated from one of the best law schools. Owing to these facts, he has the
required skills and talents that the employer would be looking for. Although Nesbitt does not
have any option to sue the Dewey for job discrimination, it would be an unethical issue to deny
him an opportunity.
Observation exists at the commencement and again after the process: at the beginning, to
determine more certainly and accurately the nature of the struggle to be dealt with; at the end, to
test the value of some hypothetically entertained conclusion. Between those two termini of
observation, we find the more distinctively mental aspects of the entire thought-cycle : (i)
inference, the suggestion of an explanation or solution, (ii) reasoning, the development of the
bearings and implications of the suggestion. Reasoning requires some experimental observation
to confirm it, while experiment can be economically and fruitfully conducted only