Running head: RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

Religious Discrimination in the Workplace

Option #3 Response
Bridget M. Macaluso
University at Buffalo

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

Religious Discrimination in the Workplace

Rauzia Ally was terminated from her position at Catholic University after working for
only one year on a three year project. Ally believes that her termination was a response to the
revelation that she is Muslim. However, the university claims that she has been fired because she
was behaving insubordinately. In this paper, I will discuss the precedence that will assist both
sides as they argue the case. I will begin by examining the legal claims that Rauzia Ally can
make against the institution. Next, I will explain the claims that Catholic University can make
against Ally. I will then provide a course of action for the institution in response to Allys
charges. Finally, I will describe the facts that the judge who is hearing the case will need to know
before she can decide how to rule in the case.
Allys Claims
Rauzia Ally believes that she was dismissed two years early from her assignment because
the university administrators discovered that she is Muslim. When she was initially hired, she did
not share her religion, but she decided to share this information about a year after she was hired.
Four months later, Ally was terminated and filed a discrimination suit. If the university cannot
prove that they terminated her for reasons other than her religion, she will win in a
discrimination case.
Ally could also consider filing for breach of contract. Because Ally believed that her
project assignment was for a three year time period, she can claim that she was unaware that she
could be removed from the project before the three year period was complete. If Ally can prove
that there was a three year contract, she was performing well in her position, and the schools
failure to uphold her three year position resulted in damages, she has a chance to win a breach of
contract case (Lovell v. Ohio Wesleyan University, 2012).

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

Even if Ally cannot prove that her contract explicitly stated a three year appointment, she
may be able to prove that she had a reasonable expectation of continued employment and was
denied due process before she lost her position. The precedent set by Soni v. University of
Tennessee (1975) implies that if an employee has a reason to believe that they will continue to be
employed by the university, they have a right to a due process before being terminated from their
position. In Perry v. Sinderman (1972), the court determined that even professors working at
schools that do not have a tenure-track system may be able to justify a claim that they were
denied due process. If Ally is able to prove that the policies and procedures of the institution led
her to believe that she would remain employed for three years, she can make a due process claim
because she was not given notice of the charges against her or the opportunity to defend herself
and her position (Perry v. Sinderman, 1972; Soni v. University of Tennessee, 1975).
Discrimination, breach of contract, and denial of due process are the claims that I would
most recommend to Rauzia Ally if I were her legal counsel. These are the claims that I believe
she is most likely to win in this case. She may also consider filing for loss of property because
she has lost the opportunity to earn the income that she expected to earn over the next two years.
However, I believe that she would lose this argument based on the legal precedent for loss of
income. In Upadhya v. Langenberg (1987), Kamleshwar Upadhya believed his contract was for a
minimum of five years and claimed loss of property when he was terminated after only two
years. However, the court determined that Upadhya simply misunderstood his contract. The
courts stated that Upadhya had not received an explicit promise of a five year term, which meant
that he lacked property interest for five years worth of income. It is likely that Ally was also not
explicitly promised that she would be on her assignment for at least three years, so she would

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

also lose a property interest case. Therefore, Allys only legal claims are discrimination, breach
of contract, and denial of due process.
University Claims
Allys claims against the school will likely tarnish the schools reputation. It may be
difficult for the institution to recruit students and faculty members who hear about the lawsuit.
The school may be able to claim defamation because Allys arguments in court may destroy the
schools reputation in the community and across the nation.
If Catholic University can prove that Ally stole the model that she created with her
students, they can also claim theft of intellectual property. In Speck v. North Carolina Dairy
Foundation (1984), Dr. Marvin Speck attempted to retrieve royalties for a formula that he had
created while working for the Foundation as a faculty member. The courts found for the
University and the Foundation because the accomplishments that are made by a faculty member
belong to the employer. Although Ally and her students created the model of a solar-powered
house, they did so as members of the institution, and therefore the model is the intellectual
property of the institution (Speck v. North Carolina Dairy Foundation, 1984).
University Response
Catholic University may decide to attend court to settle the case with Ally. If this decision
is made, university administrators will need to be able to show proof of due process and
demonstrate that there was good reason for termination. If this is not something that can be
proven by the legal counsel of the university, then they risk losing the case in court.
Because of the risk of losing in court, the universitys best course of action in responding
to this case is to settle with Ally outside of court. I would suggest that they work to find a
compromise that will satisfy Ally and have her sign a nondisclosure agreement about the

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

situation. This will allow the university to protect their reputation and to make their own
decisions without risking a loss in court. The university should find a way to move Ally to a new
position on campus or help her secure a job elsewhere. This will appease Allys need for income
while still allowing them to place someone new in her position.
Need for Further Facts
If this case were brought to my courtroom, I would need to know much more about the
situation at hand before I would be able to rule on the case. First, I would need to hear from
Catholic University on their reasons for terminating Ally. The case does not describe Allys
insubordination in detail, which makes it easy to believe that they did, in fact, terminate Ally
because of her religion. However, in order to confidently rule in Allys favor, I would need to
hear the other side of the argument. I would also want to know who it was that Ally shared her
Muslim identity with. The case explains that Ally revealed her religion after a year of
employment, but it does not state who it was that she told about her religious identity. It is
possible that her identity was shared with one peer who did not disclose this information to
anyone else. I would need to know if the administrators who terminated Ally were aware of her
religious identity in order to determine whether or not she was fired on those grounds.
I would also need to know more about Allys contract before I could rule in this case. If
Ally is going to claim that she did not believe termination from her position was possible, I need
to know what her contract said so that I can determine whether a fair reading of her contract
would indicate this notion (Upadhya v. Langenberg, 1987). This will help me to determine
whether there was a denial of due process or a breach of contract as well.
It is difficult to make a decision regarding this case without further facts about the
situation. However, based on the facts that have been provided, Ally can make a case against the

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
institution in regards to discrimination, denial of due process, and breach of contract. The
university risks defamation if this suit is brought to court, and may take Ally to court for that
claim. The university can also claim theft of intellectual property if there is proof that Ally stole
the model that she and her students created. My overall recommendation would be for the
university to settle with Ally outside of court.

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

7
References

Lovell v. Ohio Wesleyan University, 970 N.E.2d 1163 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972).
Soni v. University of Tennessee, 513 F.2d 347 (6th Cir. 1975).
Speck v. North Carolina Dairy Foundation, 319 S.E.2d 139 (N.C. 1984).
Upadhya v. Langenberg, 834 F.2d 661 (7th Cir. 1987).