Woman fired for eating BLT at work

[Dinner]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The other purpose is that pork creates an unpleasant environment for them, being Muslims,[QUOTE]

So could muslim employees sue companies claiming not having anti-pork rules creates an unpleasant work enviroment? Nope, common sense says that one won't fly. The smoking ban analogy doesn't work either because smoking is known to cause health problems to everyone around the smoker thus it is a health hazard. That isn't true with a BLT.

They aren't forcing their religion on her--they're forcing their standards of cleanliness on her. It's the same concept as allowing companies to set standards of dress.

That won't fly either bvecause there are no health or cleanliness issues here only religious one. The bottom line is the rule is an attempt to force religion on to employees and so the company will lose.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Yeah, care to give an example to me? "

How about the Boy Scouts?

[Az]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Makom

You know how to say "place" in hebrew. Impressive.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Yeah, care to give an example to me? "

How about the Boy Scouts?

The Boy Scouts! Oh, waitaminute...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So what you are saying is that Churchs have to allow Satanists into their employment as priests? I'd imagine priests have to be the religion that the Church is. Isn't that forcing them to observe the religious practices as a condition of employment?

Federal law already has an exception for religious organizations which allows them to hire people only with in the faithful thus no chirch would be forced to hire a satanist. Last I checked a telcom firm is not a church or mosque it is a for profit employer which has to abide by Federal law.

[Shi Huangdi]

Krazyhorse acting as an advocate for reading the entire thread.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

they have more to learn from us then theyre in the mood to learn lately

If you think that France and Canada are on the same wavelength on the headscarves thing then you're a bit off.

If anything we generally swing more towards the rights of religious minorities than you do.

With regards to this particular case, the company might be in trouble in Canada because we have generally stronger protections written into our labour laws wrt unfair termination.

yeah, well the "they" was ambiguous I was actually going to leave out Canada altogether, and just say Europe, but seeing as my only example of something "we" should learn from "them" was health insurance, and as the Canadian system has played a bigger role in the US debate than any Euro system, even the German, it seemed kind of silly to leave Canada out


But yeah, my sense is that Canadas approach to religious minoritys is more like ours - and I think Australias too - its a settler state, to a considerable degree. (was about to say something about Canada free riding on the Middle east, kicked self cause of Afghanistan - in any case you guys dont have many muslim immigrants other than Somalis, do you? Oh, I suppose you must have Pakistanis and so forth, and Quebec has north africans, no? - Curious, whats the francophone quebec take on muslims - closer to settler state model, or to Euros? - and are you guys gonna take part if and when we go back and clean up Somalia?)

[KrazyHorse]

KrazyHorse acting as an advocate for remembering what happened with the Boy Scout case, and pointing out that reading the entire thread would have kept you out of trouble.

[alva]

Originally posted by Azazel


You know how to say "place" in hebrew. Impressive.

Shadayim

[MichaeltheGreat]

BTW, having been on both sides of employer-employee disputes, I don't think this is open and shut either way.

A big issue is whether or not Florida is an at will state, and if so, does the employer have an at will policy or a termination for cause policy?

The question of religious discrimination is also not legally open and shut, it's a factual issue - many employers engage in bias and are smart enough to realize they have to camoflage it in terms of policy violations or selective standards of enforcement.

Many employees also play games and then look for ways to make bias claims.

If it's a case of at will employment (which is a state law matter, not Federal), then she has a much tougher time sustaining any claim.

If it's not at will, or if state law allows some form of implied employment agreement in the absense of written terms of employment, then it's at least a matter of fact and not of law, thus she's entitled to her day in court.

If there's a religious issue, and she's doing something like storing pork products in a company refrigerator, using an oven or microwave in a company kitchen area to cook or reheat pork products, etc., then her conduct has an impact on the other employees.

If she merely brought in food from outside and ate it at her desk, or an a company lunchroom, that's not a very big issue, and depending on company policy (conveniently unwritten), that's really marginal as grounds for termination.

The company is at least partly stupid (and can't whine too much) for not having it's policies clearly spelled out in writing, and not having a written employment agreement and signed acknowledgment of company policies by the employee.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Azazel


You know how to say "place" in hebrew. Impressive.

No, Makom is a tradional term used to refer to G-d, so it seemed particularly ironic that you said "religion has no place"

"baruch, hamakom, baruch hu... "


"HaMakom Yenachem Eschem B'soch She'ar Aveilay Tzion V'Yerushalayim", "May the Omnipresence bring you comfort together with all those mourning of Zion and Jerusalem".

................

"Why do we use for the name of G-d: HaMakom - The Omnipresent, literally "The Place", which is so seldom used in our liturgy?"


Basically, we are saying to the mourner: your contemplation and appreciation of HaMakom, the Omnipresent - The Place, is that which will comfort you.

Omnipresence - "The Place" implies that G-d is everywhere, and everything (physical and spiritual, matter and energy etc.) all are a part of the Oneness of G-d. Everything that exists has a purpose - as it's all part of one big picture.

.....

Being that the soul is part of G-d, its' existence continues eternally, and it has its' Makom. -- its' "place" in the total world, which is all a part of HaMakom - The Place - G-d.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sandman
I can't say I like the idea of religious folk being able to enforce their dietary laws and other stuff on their employees. And I suppose there could be some sort of 'right to eat freely' drafted for workers.

But

What if one employee insisted on eating raw offal in the canteen? There's no medical reason not too, for well-prepared offal, but it certainly violates my 'dietary laws'.

That would be a violation of health and sanitation laws.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Yeah, care to give an example to me? "

How about the Boy Scouts?

The Boy Scouts can exclude gays all they want. There's just a wee issue with getting subsidized and/or preferential access to public facilities and publicly-supported facilities while doing so, when their policy violates state anti-discrimination laws.

In their own facilities, or public facilities for which then receive no preference in access or subsidy for use, what they do is their own business.

That's not a real relevant example to this case.

[Dinner]

I still have $5 saying she'll win. The first person to make the bet might get a crisp new bill.

Of course when I win I will expect to be paid.

[KrazyHorse]

LOTM

As for Muslim population, we have more muslims per capita than you do IIRC

Checking:

580 000 out of 30 mill vs http://www.danielpipes.org/article/76 Something like 2 million out of 280 mill

It's odd that the US census is apparently not allowed to ask that question