Question 1
Mohammed Rafiq was born in India and practices Islamic. Nevertheless, in the workplace, his colleagues as well as hi manager keeps on referring to him as an Arab and essentially takes him to be an Afghanistan citizen even though Rafiq has told them on several occasions that he is from India. Harassment based upon an erroneous depiction of a worker's national origin is as unethical as harassment based on the worker's actual national origin. For instance, in Rafiq’s case, the colleagues made discriminatory comments regarding Rafiq’s religion simply because he was from a religion that they associated with a different country that to them all its populaces were terrorists that should be oust from America and the society in general.
There is enough convincing evidence that Rafiq’s suffered physical as we as emotional distress from the alleged harassment. Though Rafiq’s was not an Arab, he suffered the same effects that an Arab would have suffered from exposure to the harassment. This therefore makes it wrong and unethical considering the adverse effects that it had on the plaintiff.
Question 2
The conduct described sufficiently meets requirements Discrimination Because Of National Origin. The Title VII clearly states that no one should be imperiled to a discriminatory hostile work environment. Argabrite’s conduct on 26th October 2002 can be considered by a factfinder as an harassment based on national origin or even religion. Argabrite’s conduct was stimulated by Rafiq’s nationality. According to the Title VII action, "a party is able to establish a discrimination claim based on [his] own national origin even though the discriminatory acts do not identify [his] actual country of origin" (Jasper, 2008). Banging Rafiq’s office was meant to startle him. He is also fired on very unprofessional grounds simple because he was not an American and the manager could therefore not treat him as an equal.
Question 3
The definition of religion and of harassment based on national origin as provided by Title VII is satisfactory. This is because it will guard employees working in alien countries or in an environment that practices a different religion against being harassed on the basis of their belief or nationality. The definition of harassment also makes sure that employees are not subjected to even the slightest form of discrimination that may not essentially be easy to identify. Such definitions ensure that discriminators are held accountable of their actions even though the discrimination was not quite obvious since even the hidden form of discrimination may still have adverse effects on the victim.
References
Jasper, M. C. (2008). Employment discrimination law under Title VII. New York: Oceana.
