Woman fired for eating BLT at work

[Gangerolf]

What if they required all female employees to wear headscarves - would that be OK?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I didn't think you did.

So it wasn't about my post?

[KrazyHorse]

Yes it was.

[Az]

Originally posted by lord of the mark




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.

I knew all that, numbnuts.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yes it was.

So explain me why it was nonsense.
My point was that while pork is unclean for ones, something completely different may be unclean for others because of their religious beliefs. For example, in Old Testament it's written that women for 7 days after period is unclean and shouldn't be touched, or You get unclean too. Also, You should not come into the same water.

[Dr Strangelove]

I think she's got a pretty good case unless there are extenuating circumstances, like she bragged about eating the pork products or said or did something to convey disrespect for her employer's religion. Even in states with "employment at will" laws employees have some protection of their basic rights. An employer has a right to set workplace rules for their employees that have relevance to the business, he/she does not own the employee. An owner of a restaurant may legally require the male employees to wear tuxedos to work, the owner of an automotive repair shop probably could not.

[Dinner]

I believe the general rule of thumb is the rquirements should have some barring upon the execution of the business. A tux would be required if you were a waiter at a fancy restaurant because it fits the businesses requirements. Is not eating pork an essential part of the telcom business? I don't think so.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Heresson


So explain me why it was nonsense.
My point was that while pork is unclean for ones, something completely different may be unclean for others because of their religious beliefs. For example, in Old Testament it's written that women for 7 days after period is unclean and shouldn't be touched, or You get unclean too. Also, You should not come into the same water.

Heh that reminds me of a good joke. A married couple was going to sneak some things through customs, one of them was a skunk. They had no place to put it so the husband told the wife to put it in her panties. She asked about the smell and the husband says "if it dies it dies."

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Don't make this a habit, Oerdin, lest you become an evil godless commie like me.

[bipolarbear]

the world is going insane

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

Yes and Federal law on this issue that discrimination on the basis of religion means you cannot discriminate on the basis of religious belief or religious observances and practices. Eating pork is not part of a religious belief, nor is it a religious observance or practice. So there is no discrimination on the basis of the employee's religion, but on the basis of the owners don't want pork around. If the owners said they believed that beef was unclean (they were vegetarians say) would that be discrimination? No, of course not.

Van Koten v. Family Health Management, Inc. states that the employer must know the employee's religion in order to sustain a claim of religious discrimination.

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.

Florida is an at will state, IIRC.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I believe the general rule of thumb is the rquirements should have some barring upon the execution of the business. A tux would be required if you were a waiter at a fancy restaurant because it fits the businesses requirements. Is not eating pork an essential part of the telcom business? I don't think so.

No, the eating of pork is not an essential part of the telecom business, but neither is the prohibition of the eating of pork part of the telecom business provided that she wasn't making a mess or taking a lunch break outside of the company's policy with respect to the time and place of lunch breaks. Do you think that a vegetarian employer would be able to prohibit his employees from eating meat? I've never heard of a Jewish employer prohibiting the consumption of non-kosher products.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you think that a vegetarian employer would be able to prohibit his employees from eating meat?

Yes. What argument would the employee have against that? The employer can set rules for his business as long as it does violate federal discrimination laws. Eating meat doesn't do so.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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.

Yes and Federal law on this issue that discrimination on the basis of religion means you cannot discriminate on the basis of religious belief or religious observances and practices. Eating pork is not part of a religious belief, nor is it a religious observance or practice. So there is no discrimination on the basis of the employee's religion, but on the basis of the owners don't want pork around.

The argument is that the owners are imposing compliance with their religious beliefs in a way that is inconsistent with any usual and ordinary needs related to the business' operations.

It's not "eating pork is not required by any religion." It's "not eating pork is required by religious belief."

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.

Florida is an at will state, IIRC.

That's one hurdle in her way, but it's also a question as to the company's own policies. Companies can have non at-will termination policies if they so choose. (I've actually worked for a couple of fairly large ones that did, even though they were in at-will states)

[Imran Siddiqui]

The argument is that the owners are imposing compliance with their religious beliefs in a way that is inconsistent with any usual and ordinary needs related to the business' operations.

Yes, but I don't think that'll fly. The owners have said that they and most employees consider pork 'unclean' and they requested her to refrain from eating pork because it made others uncomfortable. That isn't illegal religious discrimination. In the religion sphere, the uncomfortableness of co-workers can be reasonable grounds for firing.

Companies can have non at-will termination policies if they so choose.

Somehow, I doubt they do .