Introduction
This was a case filed at the United States Court of Appeals in 2007. In this case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was the plaintiff while WC&M Enterprises, Inc. was the defendant. The case was taken to the court of appeal after the district court had entered a summary ruling in favor of WC&M Enterprises (Dawn, 2007). After considering all the presentations by all parties, the court of appeal reversed the district court ruling. Mohammed Rafiq, a WC&M Enterprises employee, had filed a petition in the district court that he had been harassed based on his nationality and Muslim faith. He accused his co-workers and managers of harassment. Rafiq was always referred to as a Taliban or an Arab. This was about the Taliban terrorist attack of September 2001 in America.
Main body
Harassment based upon an inaccurate portrayal of a worker’s national origin is unethical and wrong just like harassment based on a worker’s national origin. In the case of Rafiq, he was an Indian but his colleagues and supervisors accused him of being a Taliban. Although he was not a Taliban, he felt the pain of being associated with a terrorist gang. It hurts more especially that Rafiq was not a terrorist in any way. Streater-Smith and his colleagues knew that Rafiq was an Indian but they linked him to the Taliban. The issue of inaccurate portrayals of national origin does not occur. However, even if they did not know Rafiq’s nationality, they would not call him a Taliban. The other issue is that the harassment started immediately after the terrorist attack in America. Therefore, harassment based on the inaccurate portrayal of a worker’s national origin should be treated exactly like harassment based on knowledge of a worker’s national origin (Dawn, 2007).
The conduct described in the case is sufficiently linked to national origin. Although Rafiq’s country was not directly referred to, statements from his colleagues clearly show that it was discrimination based on his national origin (Dawn, 2007). At one time, Kiene told Rafiq to go back where he came from because he had a strong faith. This referred to his Islamic faith. In addition, Swigart told Rafiq that this is America and not an Islamic country where he came from. According to Swigart, Rafiq had proved to be an Islamic extremist. Therefore, he directly linked him to acts of terrorism often associated with Islamists. All Islamic faithful are not terrorists. Acts of terrorism depend on individuals and not religion or their physical appearance. Also, Kiene and Argabrite repeatedly called Rafiq a Taliban and an Arab. In my opinion as a jury, I would link the case to national origin.
Conclusion
The definition of religion and harassment based on national origin should be different. It should include; an individual’s appearance, cultural, social, and religious beliefs. This will reduce harassment or discrimination of any kind on grounds that the law accepts only where documents of identification can determine the nationality of an individual. The physical appearance and religious beliefs of an individual do not necessarily identify a person with a certain country. As in the case of Rafiq, his colleagues might have used the definition of religion and harassment in law to continuously attack Rafiq. Therefore, other aspects like appearance, language, and religious beliefs should be included in the definition (Dawn, 2007).
Reference
Dawn, B. (2007). Employment Law for Business. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education Press.