by FifthOfNovember 36 Replies latest jw friends
I like these self-righteous J.W. and their goodie goodie look at me.I can bet dollars to santa hats if you followed this self-righteous hipprocrate she would be doing a lot of things behind closed doors that God would zip her.Probably cus her husband out,etc.
B
Like the song says:
No one knows, what goes on behind closed doors
--------- Charlie Rich
Was that part of the job description? For sure, I would be seeking volunteers to wear a Santa hat if I was running a work place. If it was a retailer, it would be optional because some people simply don't feel like spending the money on a Santa hat.
However, if you are working for a company that has Christmas as its primary essence, you had better accept it. There are places that do nothing but sell Christmas decorations--Bronners and Christmas Lights Etc are two of them. If you are working retail in one of those places, wearing Christmas outfits or listening to Christmas music (all summer) may well be part of the job, and obvious at the time of acceptance at such a place. There is an amusement park called The North Pole, in New Hampshire, that is Christmas themed all summer. Work there, and you are expected to listen to Christmas songs and wear Christmas outfits (albeit altered because summer is usually pretty hot).
While companies shouldn't arbitrarily make people dress up for holidays if those holidays are not the majority of their essence, the witlesses need to accept that some positions inherently require tolerating it. For one, I would never let a witless slip through a Christmas decorating business by lying, and then suing me when they have to work with Christmas decorations. They would know that's part of the job description at the time they are hired, and I would have grounds to counter-sue (and embarrass) them for lying on their job application.
Well, considering there are several conventions over the summer, sometimes at the same site over different weekends, I find it ludicrous that the JWs' requests for time off to attend conventions couldn't be accommodated.
It looks like the jury thought this AT&T supervisor was being a poopy-head and made a big deal out of what should have been a minor, easily accomodated situation. It was in Arkansas...Bible Belt...Evangelical...
Gonzalez and Owen are Jehovah's Witnesses who were employed by AT & T as customer service technicians (“CSTs”). CSTs install new telephone and high-speed internet lines and respond to customer complaints about telephone outages. Under the collective bargaining agreement, AT & T assigns vacation time by seniority and allows it only if the workload permits. While Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate holidays, every year they hold three-day conventions throughout the country. Jehovah's Witnesses are encouraged to attend the convention with their congregations, but no one takes attendance and no doctrine requires attendance.
After the CSTs signed up for vacation time for the 2005 calendar year, Gonzalez and Owen learned that their convention would be held Friday, July 15, through Sunday, July 17. Their supervisor allowed them to switch workdays with other CSTs so that they could both attend the convention on Saturday, July 16, but both were still scheduled to work on Friday, July 15. After many discussions, their supervisor continued to refuse to allow Gonzalez and Owen to take a vacation day on July 15 and ultimately issued a “work directive” ordering them to report to work on July 15. Gonzalez and Owen failed to report to work on July 15 because they were attending the conference, and AT & T ultimately fired them for “misconduct; job abandonment; insubordination; and failure to follow a work directive.”
Gonzalez and Owen filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging that AT & T terminated their employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), which prohibits an employer from “discharg[ing] any individual ... because of such individual's ... religion .” The EEOC investigated the charges and found probable cause that AT & T failed to reasonably accommodate Gonzalez and Owen's religious beliefs. The EEOC then filed this suit on behalf of Gonzalez and Owen, claiming that AT & T engaged in unlawful employment practices by denying them a reasonable accommodation of their sincerely held religious beliefs and terminating their employment because of their religious beliefs. The EEOC sought a permanent injunction enjoining AT & T from violating Title VII, *707 as well as reinstatement, back pay, front pay and compensatory damages for Gonzalez and Owen.
I. BACKGROUND
Gonzalez and Owen are Jehovah's Witnesses who were employed by AT & T as customer service technicians (“CSTs”). CSTs install new telephone and high-speed internet lines and respond to customer complaints about telephone outages. Under the collective bargaining agreement, AT & T assigns vacation time by seniority and allows it only if the workload permits. While Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate holidays, every year they hold three-day conventions throughout the country. Jehovah's Witnesses are encouraged to attend the convention with their congregations, but no one takes attendance and no doctrine requires attendance.
After the CSTs signed up for vacation time for the 2005 calendar year, Gonzalez and Owen learned that their convention would be held Friday, July 15, through Sunday, July 17. Their supervisor allowed them to switch workdays with other CSTs so that they could both attend the convention on Saturday, July 16, but both were still scheduled to work on Friday, July 15. After many discussions, their supervisor continued to refuse to allow Gonzalez and Owen to take a vacation day on July 15 and ultimately issued a “work directive” ordering them to report to work on July 15. Gonzalez and Owen failed to report to work on July 15 because they were attending the conference, and AT & T ultimately fired them for “misconduct; job abandonment; insubordination; and failure to follow a work directive.”
Gonzalez and Owen filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging that AT & T terminated their employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), which prohibits an employer from “discharg[ing] any individual ... because of such individual's ... religion .” The EEOC investigated the charges and found probable cause that AT & T failed to reasonably accommodate Gonzalez and Owen's religious beliefs. The EEOC then filed this suit on behalf of Gonzalez and Owen, claiming that AT & T engaged in unlawful employment practices by denying them a reasonable accommodation of their sincerely held religious beliefs and terminating their employment because of their religious beliefs. The EEOC sought a permanent injunction enjoining AT & T from violating Title VII, as well as reinstatement, back pay, front pay and compensatory damages for Gonzalez and Owen.
The jury found in favor of the EEOC, awarding Gonzalez $396,000 and Owen $390,000 in damages based on their lost wages, benefits and compensatory damages.
The jury found in favor of the EEOC, awarding Gonzalez $396,000 and Owen $390,000 in damages based on their lost wages, benefits and compensatory damages.
I'm betting that beyond lost wages and benefits the balance of that almost $800,000 wound up in the WTS's vault. Holy effing crap.
Crap! You mean when I got fired from Big Rick's drive-in burgers when I was 14 for going to the circut assembly could've given me a serious payday? Back when I was "in," suing people meant that you weren't really a very good witness. We were always told to suck it up and be proud to be persecuted for Jehoober's honor.
It could have been worse, that they might request she wear a Smurf hat.
Using a little dubthink, she could have reasoned that it would be acceptable to observe Christmas, just so long as she did not partake of the holiday.
