Commercial Law Assignment: Ethical and Legal Analysis

This report provides an analysis of a commercial law assignment, focusing on the ethical and legal implications of discriminatory practices in the workplace. The assignment examines the impact of marketing schemes, the importance of diversity, and the legal aspects of employment discrimination, specifically referencing Title VII. It critiques a court's partial agreement on the issue, advocating for a complete rejection of policies that discriminate against employees based on race or religion. The report further suggests a legal approach to address the situation, emphasizing the need for employers to accommodate religious conflicts and adhere to the 'Protected Categories under Title VII'. The analysis highlights the importance of ethical conduct and legal compliance for businesses to maintain a positive image and ensure fair treatment of all employees.

Running head: COMMERCIAL LAW 1
Commercial Law
Name
Institution

COMMERCIAL LAW 2
COMMERCIAL LAW
Q1: Much weight should be accorded this kind of marketing scheme. It is very
disturbing to lock out other employees from getting employed in the organization based on
discriminatory policies. Whereas the policies can be legal, it is good for any organization to
consider the ethical aspect of the policy. This is because, this will not only affects the
discriminated employees but also the company’s image or reputation. Many customers, suppliers
and other critical stakeholders would always want to associate with ethical firms. Thus in case of
such apparent discrimination that locks one race from being employed, it automatically locks out
this particular race from consuming the product of this company. This is negative for the success
of any business since it definitely means that there will be a reduced market share and hence less
sales. This means that marketing is a driving force behind success of every organization and
should be approach with a lot of care. A wrong marketing scheme will ultimately harm the
company and this is not what any company would wish to ensue. Therefore, it calls on the
management of any company to put extra weight and check first in a proactive manner the
effects of any marketing scheme before it is officially launched. Diversity in the organization is
something that has been analogous or synonymous to success and hence only firms which
position as diverse in terms of recruitment can much the ever increasing competitive
environment. Any firm seen to be opposed to diversity like the one in the current case will really
be negatively affected. A person who is qualified a job should be given an opportunity to work
without being discriminated. It is ethical to employ on the basis of qualification and not such
biased and discriminator grounds as the ones apparent in this case.
Q2. I am in partial agreement with the Court. Whereas the court has at least shown that
there is no need to discriminate, it has only done this partially. In my view, the court seems to

COMMERCIAL LAW 3
have erred as this policy is fully against the Title VII. I do not see any other reason as to why
such polices should not be expunged since this is something that goes into direct impact on
someone’s life. The policy promotes the risk to the blacks as it compels them to shave even when
it has been medically shown that it is harmful if they shave. Thus, in my view this a policy that
should be dead on arrival and the court should have got rid of it in totally to allow both legal and
ethical practices to blossom for the greater good of both business and the society as a whole.
Q3. I can think of a better legal approach to this situation. In my view, such a policy
should be scrapped off. This policy should be looked at more broadly as it discusses the beards
in procedural context of disparate impact instead of sustentative issue of beards’ wearing. A
person must be free to wear beards if the religion dictates without being compelled to save it for
safety purposes merely to allow the mask to fit. In my view, an employer has the duty to
accommodate the religious conflict unless it is proven that it will cause undue hardship. In the
present I do not see or foresee any undue hardship that will because apart from an obvious
discrimination in disguise. Moreover, the employer can only change the job of the employee to
get rid of safety issue. The employer must adhere to the “Protected Categories under Title VII”
which protects everyone from employment discrimination that directly touches on race, color,
gender, religion and national origin.