Woman fired for eating BLT at work

[ixnay]

Woman Fired For Eating 'Unclean' Meat
Attorney: 'It's A Classic Case Of Religious Discrimination'

POSTED: 5:46 am EDT August 4, 2004
UPDATED: 12:45 pm EDT August 4, 2004

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A Central Florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises, according to Local 6 News.

Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties, Local 6 News reported.

However, 10 months after being hired by Rising Star, religious differences led to her termination.

Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean.," Local 6 News reported. She was then fire for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report.

"Are you telling me they fired you because you had something with ham on it?" Local 6 News reporter Mike Holfeld asked.

"Yes," Morales said.

Holfeld asked, "A pizza and a BLT sandwich?"

" Yes," Morales said.

Local 6 News obtained the termination letter that states she was fired for refusing to comply with company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises.

However, by the company's own admission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that policy is not written, Local 6 News reported.

"Did you ever sign to or agree to anything that said I will not eat pork?" Holfeld asked Morales.

"Never," Morales said. "When I got hired there, they said we don't care what religion you are."

Attorney Travis Hollifield is representing Morales in a lawsuit against the company.

"It's just un-American," Hollifield said. "It's not in compliance with the laws of this country."

Local 6 News reported that the case has precedent-setting issues because it addresses employee rights and religion in the workplace.

"It's a classic case of religious discrimination," Hollifield said. "They have not articulated a single reason other than religious reason behind the policy."

The CEO of Rising Star, Kujaatele Kweli, told Local 6 News that they have tried to create an office that accommodates anybody's religion -- not just Islam.

"Clearly you're accommodating," Holfeld said.

"Yes." Kweli replied.

"And you have an ecumenical philosophy," Holfeld said.

" Yes," Kweli replied.

"(Then) shouldn't you be able to accommodate all faiths in the same lunch room?" Holfeld asked.

"We do, we can," Kweli said.

"But you've dismissed one of your employees for eating pork in the lunch room," Holfeld said.

"Yes, pork is considered unclean," Kweli said.

The Koran forbids Muslims from eating pork. And according to Kweli, Morales and every employee at the company is advised of the no pork policy.

"Our point of view is to respect the laws of the land and the laws of the land as I understand it is to the accommodate people's right to practice their religions if you can," Kweli said.

"Even if it impacts other people?" Holfeld asked.

"Well, it always impacts other people," Kweli replied.

Orlando attorney Mark Nejame is close to the Muslim community, Local 6 News reported. He said Kweli's intentions may cross constitutional parameters, according to the report.

"They're making it seem that if you don't follow a certain set of religious practices and beliefs then you're going to be terminated and that's wrong," Nejame said. "If this case prevails, what it will mean -- the implications of this case -- is it will eliminate accommodations of religion."

Both sides are steadfast in their belief that they are right. Morales is taking the company to court charging discrimination, Local 6 News reported.

http://www.local6.com/money/3614199/detail.html

Now, I'm all for companies being able to hire and fire whoever they please but this is just ridiculous. If she wasn't informed about this before being hired and never signed anything, I think the company is wrong here.

[Boris Godunov]

If the company had a policy of not allowing pork, then she's SOL. She doesn't have to sign a specific statement--when she agrees to take the position, she agrees to abide by its rules.

Besides, in order for it to be religious discrimination, she'd have to prove that her eating pork is somehow a required aspect of her religious belief. Nowhere in Christianity is anyone required to eat pork.

[JohnT]

What he said.

What I say: Just another whiny bint looking for a quick payoff.

[Stuie]

Children are told they cannot bring peanut products into classrooms because of allergies. What's the difference?

[alva]

Aren't you the same people who said that a person should be able to wear a headscarf no-matter what compagny policy is? Or is that different...

[JohnT]

However, let this be a lesson learned for the company: always put stuff like this in writing... a policy book is good enough, better yet, have the employees sign that they have received and read the policy book.

[Provost Harrison]

What gives a company the right to impose these morals on others? I mean, this is not a health and safety issue, so she should be allowed to eat pork if she chooses. It most certainly isn't grounds for dismissal. Rather than companies being able to 'hire and fire whoever they like', you have to look at the other side of the coin and the responsibility that is wielded here over someone else's life and wellbeing. It is not simply sufficient to be able to do that as it can have a significant impact on someone's life! I've been at the receiving end of this, and so have other people. Good luck to her, it must be shown that this kind of discrimination is not acceptable

[Az]

alva, you forget, the government can't do ****, corporations can do whatever they want to.

[Provost Harrison]

The issue is also - they may be able to put 'no eating pork' in a rulebook, but is it lawful to make such a concession? Could they, by the same token, put 'must fellate the CEO at every available opportunity'. Would you consider that to be lawful?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ditto what Boris said.

She knew the rule even though she never signed anything. And it ain't religious discrimination because the company can easily assert that they would fire a Muslim who was eating pork as well. And eating pork is not a part of Christianity.

Aren't you the same people who said that a person should be able to wear a headscarf no-matter what compagny policy is? Or is that different...

It is. For some people, wearing a headscarf is a part of their religious beliefs. Eating pork is a part of no one's religious beliefs.

[JohnT]

There are laws against sexual harrassment, PH. Let's not blow this all out of proportion here.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
What gives a company the right to impose these morals on others?

The same right that says they can set whatever dress code they want. A private entity has the right to set its own policies, so long as the policy doesn't infringe on the religious practice of an employee. As I said, since pork eating isn't a religious requirement for Christians, claiming this is some sort of religious persecution is a specious argument.

Now, if they were trying to force her to eat something she didn't want to, she might have a case.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
The issue is also - they may be able to put 'no eating pork' in a rulebook, but is it lawful to make such a concession? Could they, by the same token, put 'must fellate the CEO at every available opportunity'. Would you consider that to be lawful?

There is a quantum difference between asking sexual favors as part of employment (which would be prostitution, which is illegal) and banning the flesh of a wonder, magical animal. There is no law mandating the consumption of pork products, and no relgion requires it.

Thought those people from the "other white meat" campaign should get in touch with this woman.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A private entity has the right to set its own policies, so long as the policy doesn't infringe on the religious practice of an employee.

Yep. I think the peanut analogy brought up earlier is a good one. If most of the people there believe pork is unclean, they don't want it in their area and have the right to have it around them, just like people allergic to peanuts can have them not in their area.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
The issue is also - they may be able to put 'no eating pork' in a rulebook, but is it lawful to make such a concession? Could they, by the same token, put 'must fellate the CEO at every available opportunity'. Would you consider that to be lawful?

Forcing someone to do something they don't want to do is not the same thing as prohibiting something they may want to do.

What if she wanted to wear a t-shirt that had racial slurs on it to work? Would they have no right to prohibit that?