by closer2fine 40 Replies latest jw friends
For instance could someone hired by JW's be fired for wishing someone "Merry Christmas"?
Yes, assuming this was stipulated in advance. I don't see why a company shouldn't be allowed to have whatever silly rules it wants as long as nobody's rights are violated. You must wear a tie, you can't look at porn in work, you can't eat pork in work. What's the difference - as long as everyone knows in advance?
I'm with FunkyD on this one.
She apparently was warned ahead of time, if her job was truly important to her, she'd have followed the policy.
I agree .. it is their right not to have someone doing something that *they* find offensive. It seems she then went out of her way to cause offense.
Silly cow.
You must wear a tie, you can't look at porn in work, you can't eat pork in work. What's the difference - as long as everyone knows in advance?
You can't pray silently, you can't grow old, you can't keep your non-white skin, you can't be of Greek heritage, you can't complain about dirty jokes, you can't complain if you are called "sweetass".........
Lots of things you can't do as a business owner even if you let people know in advance.
Private business does not equate to private home.
I agree .. it is their right not to have someone doing something that *they* find offensive. It seems she then went out of her way to cause offense.
She ate a sandwich. You make it sound like she walked around the office with a t-shirt that said: All Moslems are terrorists.
I agree .. it is their right not to have someone doing something that *they* find offensive.
It's not about what someone finds offensive, it's about discriminating against someone based on a religious reason. A religious motive is behind the banning of a certain kind of food in the workplace. An employee was fired based on religious grounds. In the USA, religious motives cannot play a part in the hiring, firing or discipline of an employee.
Hell, I find lots of things offensive that people under my supervision do. I can't fire them for it, unless it breaks a written company policy, and one that meets with the laws of the land. Sometimes I can't fire people even when I think they deserve it because human resources says we didn't follow procedures properly in disciplining them.
The idea that if you, "make them agree to it beforehand, it's OK" doesn't usually work when it comes to employment.
In America at least, the only way this could fly is if the employer can prove that eating pork directly affects the employee's job performance.
For example, it is conceivable that the employee in question dealt with customers, perhaps even ate in front of them and that the customers here were predominately Islamic. Offending the clientele would arguably fall under the heading of job performance.
Some employment rules that on the surface, seem ridiculous have stood up on court on this basis.
Legally, she probably has a case. Morally/ethically, if she was aware of the verbal agreement why did she choose to eat the pork? Somethin doesn't add up. How long was she employed? 10 months? Decides to have some bacon for lunch one day, after almost a year? First offence for her? Sounds fishy!! Or porky!!!
Morgan
I just got back from the Giants game (Sorry Cubs-you should have actually pitched to Bonds, he got a homerun because you walked him...) and got to read everyone's thoughts on this issue. During the day, I remembered that this year Paul McCartney went on a "meat banned" tour in which none of the workers were allowed to eat meat or wear leather while they were working on his tour (in Europe, not USA, but in some of the countries that is irrelevant-they have similar religious/political freedoms as USA). I haven't heard that anyone has sued him yet.
Anyway-
What I guess I was trying to say earlier, that didn't come out so clear is what the 6th Circuit said in Smith v. Pyro Mining Co. (1987) (when one can't be eloquent herself, rely on the circuit judges):
"A prima facie case of religious discrimination under Title VII is made by a plaintiff showing:
1) That he holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement;"
(This employee held no sincere religious belief that required her to eat pork at work)
"2) That he has informed the employer about the conflicts; and,
3) That he was discharged or disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement."
And in this case, Pedreira v. Ky. Baptist Homes for Children, Inc., (2001) 186 F. Supp. 2d. 757,
"The civil rights statutes protect religious freedom, not personal lifestyle choices. There is no religious discrimination in an employment policy which does not require and does not inhibit the practice of or belief in any faith. "
Again, I'd reiterate, that this former employee was not inhibited from practicing her sincerely held religious beliefs because she had no sincerely held relgious beliefs requiring her to eat pork at work. The fact that she only ate it only twice during her ten month tenure at that job tends to indicate that her interests (religious or otherwise) in eating pork at work are slight in the first place.
Because she does not meet the first element of the prima facie case, it shouldn't move forward.
And Avi- you might have called it, I don't blame you for your idea, it was a good one (go for the bias-always good to discredit an opposite view with bias). I don't feel strongly about this because of my relgious beliefs. I couldn't care less about pork-free job sites. My bias is this: I am in the middle of working on the topic of workplace discrimination because of a research assignment due next week, so I have been reading a lot about what is necessary to make the various complaints for the different types of workplace discrimination. What I have discovered is that it is incredibly difficult to make most of them stick. I feel strongly that this plaintiff has another agenda beside her sincerely held religious beliefs, perhaps her own discriminatory beliefs.
I know it sounds outrageous, I think it was ridiculous (my own bias against extreme fundamental religions in general). But I also don't think this woman has a legal leg to stand on, and for her attorney to imply that this is landmark (or groundbreaking) shows he did not do his research (about the law, and whether his client was religiously bound to eat pork for lunch) before running his mouth to the press. As we joke in the law office I work in "Sanctions!"
Again I cut my legal teeth on this board....Let me know if I'm overruled by the court.
Shoshana
(double post-that's never happened to me before ().
