Woman fired for eating BLT at work

[alva]

She took the job, didn't she?

Like anyone would refuse it because some ***** has stated " no pork". in it

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Pekka
you have to respect the company policies. Assuming she knew it was a policy, signing an agreement or not doesn't matter. She took the job, didn't she? SO if she knew about this policy, or was told to read and learn the policy herself, then she's in the wrong.

Verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Besides his rules are religiously based and thus against Federal law. Christians have gotten the pants sued off of them for much less so this is going to be an open and shut case.

[KrazyHorse]

Besides his rules are religiously based and thus against Federal law

Nope.

[loinburger]

I don't see much difference between this case and the case of the Christian fundie who was fired for putting the "lol God hates fags" Leviticus quotes on his cubicle awhile back. This lady and the fundie were both potentially creating an uncomfortable environment for their coworkers, both were warned that they were in violation of company policy, both ignored the warning, and both were fired as a result. The only difference, I suppose, is that I love bacon and I don't particularly love the "lol God hates fags" quotes from Leviticus.

I'll see if I can dredge up the thread on the fundie getting fired.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I think you should notice that the divide is more Euro/American though LOTM

The Euros are for the employee

The Americans are for the company

Again, odd given the headscarves issue...

cause that was a GOVERNMENT policy, and it was banning something which WAS (according to some muslims) religiously required - as has been said above, this woman has not claimed her religion REQUIRES her to eat pork.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Eating pork harms no-one, therefore the compagny should shut the f*** up and let her do her job.

But they didn't want her to eat the pork in their workplace because they believe it to be unclean. So it harmed them. They own the company, therefore the employee should shut the f*** up and follow company policy on the prohibition of eating pork .

[Atahualpa]

Just get rid off religion as a whole.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


cause that was a GOVERNMENT policy, and it was banning something which WAS (according to some muslims) religiously required - as has been said above, this woman has not claimed her religion REQUIRES her to eat pork.

I understand the justification from the Ami side. Not from the Euro side...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't see much difference between this case and the case of the Christian fundie who was fired for putting the "lol God hates fags" Leviticus quotes on his cubicle awhile back. This lady and the fundie were both potentially creating an uncomfortable environment for their coworkers, both were warned that they were in violation of company policy, both ignored the warning, and both were fired as a result. The only difference, I suppose, is that I love bacon and I don't particularly love the "lol God hates fags" quotes from Leviticus.

Another case involving Christian fundies was a woman who continually wore a large pin with an aborted fetus on it. She wouldn't wear another anti-abortion pin and created an uncomfortable situation for other employees and thus was fired and it was deemed not discrimination based on religious beliefs.

[Dinner]

The reason she will win is because there is no other purpose for the pork ban then to force other people to abide by one groups religious rules. Forcing other people to observe religious practices as a condition of employment is against federal law and so these guys are going to lose alot of money.

[KrazyHorse]

Forcing other people to observe religious practices as a condition of employment is against federal law

No it isn't.

[KrazyHorse]

Basically, according to US law as now practiced, I think the woman has no case. If there's a rule that you're not allowed to eat certain things on the premises then you're not allwed to eat certain things on the premises.

I'm much more uncertain as to whether or not I believe the company should be allowed to fire somebody for this.

[Dinner]

I have $5 that says she wins. Want to bet?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
No way would the reaction from the leftists be the same if this were a Christian owned business imposing some kind of rule.

Yeah, care to give an example to me? Why is it you constantly whine about the left like this?

[lord of the mark]

Ok, im enough of a social democrat to NOT be real firm on employment at will, and I AM uncomfortable at the notion of LARGE firms imposing a rule like this on all their employees (which seems to go BEYOND the requirements of religious law, if it doesnt allow a side room for "trief" meat). OTOH the law IS the law, and the companys rights are what they are, AND Im uncomfortable at people judging these policies without knowledge of or any respect for the religious issues involved - that, ultimately is WHY, from a liberal point of view, we have property rights - not cause property is sacred, or its the only efficient system, but precisely because private property is NECESSARY to provide a space for diversity, for minorities, for dissent.

So as a Social democrat I sympathize with the employee - as a liberal, I sympathize with the employer/ (needless to say as a Jew I have allies on both sides, of diffferent kinds) So my final suggestion, very American (or at least it was at one time) DONT rely on govt law to protect the employee - rely on COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - in other words, dont SUE, lady, JOIN A UNION - ORGANIZE. This will limit the arbitrary power of the employer, will probably have limited effect on small businesses, and by putting things in a negotiating context can lead to a compromise solution. And leaves private property rights standing.