MI - Muslim flight attendant suspended for refusing to serve alcohol, 25 Aug 2015

[Donjeta]

Philosophical question:

Let's say that alcohol is a sin. Let's further say that people who sell and serve alcohol are complicit in other people's bad behavior. You never know if the drink you're pouring is the drink that pulls some recovering alcoholic into relapse and bad things happen as a consequence.
Let's say you work at a restaurant or a supermarket or an airline that sells or serves alcohol.

So, you refuse to pour the actual drinks and move the bottles along the check out till and your hands aren't in physical contact with the alcohol containers. But your employer promotes sin, and your wages are at least partly funded by alcohol purchases. You are part of the system that makes it possible for your employer to sell alcohol and tempt people to their doom.

Why is it OK to work there?

 

[Hez]

Philosophical question:

Let's say that alcohol is a sin. Let's further say that people who sell and serve alcohol are complicit in other people's bad behavior. You never know if the drink you're pouring is the drink that pulls some recovering alcoholic into relapse and bad things happen as a consequence.
Let's say you work at a restaurant or a supermarket or an airline that sells or serves alcohol.

So, you refuse to pour the actual drinks and move the bottles along the check out till and your hands aren't in physical contact with the alcohol containers. But your employer promotes sin, and your wages are at least partly funded by alcohol purchases. You are part of the system that makes it possible for your employer to sell alcohol and tempt people to their doom.

Why is it OK to work there?

BBM - Because deep down, they actually pray to the almighty dollar. :moo:

 

[sonjay]

I have a question for any who know the answer.

ExpressJet placed CS on unpaid administrative leave Aug 25, and every article says she would be terminated after a year. Why the unpaid leave? And why was she not terminated right away?

snipped & BBM.

I have no actual knowledge about that, but if I had to make a guess, I'd guess it's part of the union contract.

 

[sonjay]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17665989/...ifts-muslims-who-wont-ring-pork/#.Ve8ZZZcnKM1

If cashiers have the duty to avoid being complicit in customers' sins, it seems like it would limit the work far more than just ringing up ham sandwiches and beer. How about selling DVD's, books and magazines? Some of them might contain nudity, blaspheming, atheist thoughts or other sinful content. Can you sell matches? Someone might use them for arson. Oreos and french fries? Gluttony is a sin, according to some schools of thought. Make up, body building gear, push up bras and slimming underwear? Isn't it encouraging vanity? Condoms? Someone might use them while fornicating. Clothing? Swimming suits? Wouldn't you have to check it for modesty before agreeing to sell?

I think self service might be best to avoid these questions... that way everyone can take full adult responsibility for their own sins without dragging some poor cashier into it. (The store owners who get all the profits are probably screwed though.)

ETA: on second thought I'm not sure that being the cart boy would save you... if you collect the carts that people transported their sinful purchases in, aren't you STILL complicit in their sin? Some of that pork pays your wages...

And what about the taxi drivers? Do they ask every passenger if they're going to see an X-rated movie or stop at a sex shop after they reach their destination? Do they ask them if they're on their way from or to an assignation with someone they're not married to? Do they ask them if they're on their way to dinner at a restaurant where they're going to drink alcohol or eat pork products? Do they ask them if they're on their way to a job where they're going to serve alcohol or pork products?

Are taxi passengers going to have to start filling out a 20-page questionnaire before Muslim cabbies will agree to transport them somewhere?

 

[bluesneakers]

And what about the taxi drivers? Do they ask every passenger if they're going to see an X-rated movie or stop at a sex shop after they reach their destination? Do they ask them if they're on their way from or to an assignation with someone they're not married to? Do they ask them if they're on their way to dinner at a restaurant where they're going to drink alcohol or eat pork products? Do they ask them if they're on their way to a job where they're going to serve alcohol or pork products?

Are taxi passengers going to have to start filling out a 20-page questionnaire before Muslim cabbies will agree to transport them somewhere?

A Christian friend of mine refused to listen to music by or buy albums from bands who had gay members. Which meant no Queen, but she was also very anti-Satanic music which was a big concern in the 1980s. But anyway I asked her how she could have this rule but read books by authors who might be gay, and did she ask the guy at the bakery if he were gay before she bought a loaf of bread, and what if our PE teacher really was a lesbian? I wanted to know how it was possible to go through life like this but she couldn't give me an answer other than to rail more about Hollywood's gay agenda and refusing to live in support of sin.

Because honestly I don't know how you get through life and operate in the world when you have such strict definitions of who (or what) is acceptable to interact with. Especially if you let it interfere with your job performance.

 

[Donjeta]

How about subway and train drivers? How can they make sure there's no one on board who is carrying illegal drugs, fleeing from a crime scene or getting gay married?

Or do they get a pass for their passengers' sins because their vehicle is bigger than a taxi?

 

[K_Z]

A Christian friend of mine refused to listen to music by or buy albums from bands who had gay members. Which meant no Queen, but she was also very anti-Satanic music which was a big concern in the 1980s. But anyway I asked her how she could have this rule but read books by authors who might be gay, and did she ask the guy at the bakery if he were gay before she bought a loaf of bread, and what if our PE teacher really was a lesbian? I wanted to know how it was possible to go through life like this but she couldn't give me an answer other than to rail more about Hollywood's gay agenda and refusing to live in support of sin.

Because honestly I don't know how you get through life and operate in the world when you have such strict definitions of who (or what) is acceptable to interact with. Especially if you let it interfere with your job performance.

BBM. Well, a lot of people who have such strict personal "rules" about who they are willing to interact with, based on their particular religious beliefs, choose to live a very separatist life from the rest of secular society. There are cloistered nuns and monks, fundamentalist sects, cults, hermits, etc. Some choose not to hold secular jobs of any kind, or make ends meet with home based businesses. Some reject and shun every aspect of formal government, such as ID cards, social security numbers, birth certificates, and taxes. Some shelter their children by rigidly controlling who the children can interact with, and homeschooling.

Most of the folks who fit the descriptions above don't ever hold any kind of employee position by choice.

The societal problem, IMO, becomes obvious when these folks try to straddle both worlds-- and want the secular world and everyone else in society they encounter, to bend to their will and their desires, rather than continue to separate themselves from the issues they object to.

It's the "forcing their beliefs on everyone else" that is the problem, IMO.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Good point, KZ.....& how about this too? How about what paying customers object to?
Like If I'm a paying customer, I don't want to see swastikas tattooed on the forehead of a server serving me, I don't want to see a server throwing gang signs at me, and I don't want to see crazy hairdo's preparing my food, and I don't want to have religious zealots trying to "sell me a ticket to the pearly gates" while I'm paying my dentists bill. Additionally, I don't want a religious headscarf hanging over my surgeons mask while performing surgery for hygienic reasons. And as a woman who has had to work twice as hard to break the glass ceiling in a male dominated world with the credentials and sacrifices to prove it, well.....yep you can guess what my ending is to that line, right??? Maybe not PC but I know how I feel. I don't like anything that purposefully puts another individual in a subordinate position in society.
I'm funny like that!

Rant over.

All moo

 

[lonetraveler]

I flew airevac as a flight nurse and medical crew director for the USAF for a number of years, so I have a lot of familiarity with scheduling and crew duty day issues, flightline issues, inflight accommodations, etc.

So, another area I have questions about is how do they accommodate her very likely request for private prayer time during her crew duty day, and also while inflight?

Muslims pray 5 times a day, facing Mecca. Some work places provide private foot washing (purification) bathrooms and prayer rooms. How would this be accommodated for a flight crew member? Certainly a departure delay for prayer rituals would be unacceptable, as would issues surrounding landing procedures, etc, if she were engaged in prayer rituals inflight.

My biggest worry for the prayer times would be if the pilot was Muslim. :thinking:

 

[sonjay]

Good point, KZ.....& how about this too? How about what paying customers object to?
Like If I'm a paying customer, I don't want to see swastikas tattooed on the forehead of a server serving me, I don't want to see a server throwing gang signs at me, and I don't want to see crazy hairdo's preparing my food, and I don't want to have religious zealots trying to "sell me a ticket to the pearly gates" while I'm paying my dentists bill. Additionally, I don't want a religious headscarf hanging over my surgeons mask while performing surgery for hygienic reasons. And as a woman who has had to work twice as hard to break the glass ceiling in a male dominated world with the credentials and sacrifices to prove it, well.....yep you can guess what my ending is to that line, right??? Maybe not PC but I know how I feel. I don't like anything that purposefully puts another individual in a subordinate position in society.
I'm funny like that!

Rant over.

All moo

Rant away!

Courts have previously made it very clear that what an employer's customers want is irrelevant.

 

[Mystymiss]

My biggest worry for the prayer times would be if the pilot was Muslim. :thinking:

Well the pilot can do it on his/her 15min break. I work for a county government and I get
2 fifteen minute breaks and 1/2 hour lunch per day. So no problem the co pilot can take over the plane controls while the pilot uses the break and lunch times for prayers. Of course if that plane ride is short then he/she might not be entitled to that break and lunch times...

 

[Montjoy]

Rant away!

Courts have previously made it very clear that what an employer's customers want is irrelevant.

Yes and no. First off, there's no need for the court to protect people from tattoos and crazy hairstyles -- consumers have the power to complain to managers or take their business elsewhere. I've never heard of a surgeon wearing a niqab, ever...but I would submit that a niqab is likely washed far more often than the average doctor's necktie (something that has been shown to be highly unhygienic by one of the major medical journals) and less likely to transfer infection than the long nails of a nurse or doctor.

Second, on the other hand, there actually are legal protections and remedies for customers, however, in their capacity as citizens with protections against discrimination, etc. And so I would take issue with the idea of customer wants as being irrelevant.

 

[bluesneakers]

My biggest worry for the prayer times would be if the pilot was Muslim. :thinking:

I'm sure pilots can take breaks during a flight (I've heard rumours they nap on trans-Atlantic flights) but I don't know for how long. The other thing is Muslims pray during the day, so if a pilot takes an evening or overnight shift it wouldn't be a problem. Anyway, now I'm very curious... I wonder how many hits googling "Muslim pilots" will get me?

eta: What do pilots on EgyptAir do? Hmm.

 

[EllieBee]

I am about as liberal as one can be. And I vehemently will defend the rights of individuals to maintain the edicts of their religions.

If a private business owner refuses service to a customer for whatever reason, it is their right to do so, much as it may anger people.

We may voice our distaste or our anger, even, by refusing to give that business our dollars.

However, when person accepts a job with a public or privately owned business, and knows the policies of that company, yet refuses to abide by those policies, then that person is, IMO, fire-able. They knew the sort of company they were applying to work for and draw a check from. If it is a company serves alcohol, and you knew that, you can't scream "foul" because you are asked to serve alcohol.

Redonkulous.

BTW, and this will not be popular, if a baker who owns her/his own bakery declines to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, that is their right. Also, it is the right of those of us who don't agree to take our business to another bakery.

My husband disagrees with me HUGELY, so we can no longer discuss this in our home, but I believe that private business can stick to their beliefs, as can their potential patrons. My husband feels that if one opens a business, one no longer is allowed to operate under one's own ethics/standards.

We did not see eye-to-eye, and called it a night. (But I think I am right)

 

[bluesneakers]

I am about as liberal as one can be. And I vehemently will defend the rights of individuals to maintain the edicts of their religions.

If a private business owner refuses service to a customer for whatever reason, it is their right to do so, much as it may anger people.

We may voice our distaste or our anger, even, by refusing to give that business our dollars.

However, when person accepts a job with a public or privately owned business, and knows the policies of that company, yet refuses to abide by those policies, then that person is, IMO, fire-able. They knew the sort of company they were applying to work for and draw a check from. If it is a company serves alcohol, and you knew that, you can't scream "foul" because you are asked to serve alcohol.

Redonkulous.

BTW, and this will not be popular, if a baker who owns her/his own bakery declines to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, that is their right. Also, it is the right of those of us who don't agree to take our business to another bakery.

My husband disagrees with me HUGELY, so we can no longer discuss this in our home, but I believe that private business can stick to their beliefs, as can their potential patrons. My husband feels that if one opens a business, one no longer is allowed to operate under one's own ethics/standards.

We did not see eye-to-eye, and called it a night. (But I think I am right)

I agree with your husband. If you let business owners pick and choose whom they will serve you end up with "Whites only" and "No Jews Allowed." You end up with a flight attendant who won't refill your bloody Mary which you desperately need because you're terrified of flying. Maybe you live in a small town with one pharmacy and the pharmacist who works there refuses to fill your prescription.

You might also end up with same-sex couples not allowed to smooch in the taxi.

JMO.

 

[Mystymiss]

My opinion if this attendant knew that serving alcohol during flights was part of the job when she
accepted the position. She has no right to complain now. She needs to do the job or apply for another position that would her religious beliefs.

Same goes for marriage Lic. If it is now legal for a gay couple to marry in the city/County/State,
then this women needs to seek another position or she should be fired! JMO

 

[Dockins]

I'm sure pilots can take breaks during a flight (I've heard rumours they nap on trans-Atlantic flights) but I don't know for how long. The other thing is Muslims pray during the day, so if a pilot takes an evening or overnight shift it wouldn't be a problem. Anyway, now I'm very curious... I wonder how many hits googling "Muslim pilots" will get me?

My husband is a pilot on a commercial airline. He has had numerous Muslim co-pilots. When we discussed this earlier, he said no one he has worked with whether it's flight deck or in-flight crew, has ever taken prayer breaks. On my husband's airline, whenever a pilot leaves the cockpit, aflight attendant sits in the cockpit while a beverage cart it nestled in front of the galley with the other flight attendant standing behind it. This is policy. The only place on his flights would be the bathroom, which I sincerely think would be considered unclean. He doesn't fly small commuter planes with only one f/a, so I don't even know how that works. He always has a first officer and 3 flight attendants. He also has never been aware of a Muslim f/a refusing to serve alcohol in his almost 30 years of commercial flying. It will be interesting to see how this ends.

 

[sonjay]

Yes and no. First off, there's no need for the court to protect people from tattoos and crazy hairstyles -- consumers have the power to complain to managers or take their business elsewhere. I've never heard of a surgeon wearing a niqab, ever...but I would submit that a niqab is likely washed far more often than the average doctor's necktie (something that has been shown to be highly unhygienic by one of the major medical journals) and less likely to transfer infection than the long nails of a nurse or doctor.

Second, on the other hand, there actually are legal protections and remedies for customers, however, in their capacity as citizens with protections against discrimination, etc. And so I would take issue with the idea of customer wants as being irrelevant.

Adarsh, who wears a turban as part of his Sikh religion, is hired to work at the counter in a coffee shop. A few weeks after Adarsh begins working, the manager notices that the work crew from the construction site near the shop no longer comes in for coffee in the mornings. When the manager makes inquiries, the crew complains that Adarsh, whom they mistakenly believe is Muslim, makes them uncomfortable in light of the anniversary of the September 11th attacks. The manager tells Adarsh that he will be terminated because the coffee shop is losing the construction crew's business. The manager has subjected Adarsh to unlawful religious discrimination by taking an adverse action based on customer preference...

www1.eeoc.gov//eeoc/publications/qa_religious_garb_grooming.cfm

 

[Mystymiss]

Adarsh, who wears a turban as part of his Sikh religion, is hired to work at the counter in a coffee shop. A few weeks after Adarsh begins working, the manager notices that the work crew from the construction site near the shop no longer comes in for coffee in the mornings. When the manager makes inquiries, the crew complains that Adarsh, whom they mistakenly believe is Muslim, makes them uncomfortable in light of the anniversary of the September 11th attacks. The manager tells Adarsh that he will be terminated because the coffee shop is losing the construction crew's business. The manager has subjected Adarsh to unlawful religious discrimination by taking an adverse action based on customer preference...

www1.eeoc.gov//eeoc/publications/qa_religious_garb_grooming.cfm

I say if he was hired wearing the turban and there was no dress code in effect at the time he should have a right stay.

 

[Boytwnmom]

to a retaliation charge as you can't "retaliate" against someone for pursuing their rights. Many large companies also have internal policies against retaliation so once a claim of needing a reasonable accommodation is made, it's unlikely the person would be fired.

In general, the standard for religious accommodation is less than that for disability accommodation. But often a disability accommodation is a more straightforward accommodation than what we seem to dealing with when it comes to religion.

I used to do a lot of HR legal for our company but I haven't for years now. We have about 25k employees and I can't recall anyone seeking a religious accommodation back when I covered HR. But that could be very different now as everyone seems to feel confident in demanding accommodations for their particular needs. I think it's more common today for people to decide on their own what their "religion" requires.

I think the courts have a sound legal basis to find against many of these religious accommodation claimants. But I also think most companies, like mine, have many policies in place to ensure no one is discriminated against and employees and lawyers are good at using those to try and continually expand the rights of employees to determine which tasks they can perform because of their beliefs, needs etc.

I firmly support the right of the people to believe whatever crazy things they want and to worship any and all gods as they choose. But I also support employers and fellow employees who are trying to run a business and get the job done without being forced to jump through ever higher hoops. I recall when religious accommodation was really about allowing employees to have the time off to worship or celebrate their unique holidays. Now everyone seems to have very fragile gods that require extreme measures to satisfy them.

I just looked at an article a lawyer for one of our outside firms wrote about religious accommodation. It was for the purpose of giving general advice to companies but I found parts of it a little disturbing.

Take the employee’s word that the religious belief is sincere. Under the law, a “sincere religious belief ” does not necessarily need to be from an organized religion, or practiced by many people, or long-held by the employee.

I can't think of too many standards more ripe for abuse. I understand the intent of the legal advice but as an internal counsel I also understand the fact that businesses need to operate and make money in order to keep their employees employed and I guess I don't agree that we have to try and accommodate whatever someone requests simply because it is couched in religion.

But I understand her point and would agree, that, legally, the better response to a request absurd on its face is to focus on the hardship rather than on the sincerity of the belief. It's like you can't point out the emperor has no clothes. But I do think it's fair to really present the hardships that employer and fellow employees will face.

An accommodation would pose an undue hardship if it –would cause more than de minimis cost on the operation of the employer’s business. Factors relevant to undue hardship may include the type of workplace, the nature of the employee’s duties, the identifiable cost of the accommodation in relation to the size and operating costs of the employer, and the number of employees who will in fact need a particular accommodation.

Costs to be considered include not only direct monetary costs but also the burden on the conduct of the employer’s business. For example, courts have found undue hardship where the accommodation diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees’ job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, or causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work. Whether the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law will also be considered.

To prove undue hardship, the employer will need to demonstrate how much cost or disruption a proposed accommodation would involve. An employer cannot rely on potential or hypothetical hardship when faced with a religious obligation that conflicts with scheduled work, but rather should rely on objective information. A mere assumption that many more people with the same religious practices as the individual being accommodated may also seek accommodation is not evidence of undue hardship.

If an employee’s proposed accommodation would pose an undue hardship, the employer should explore alternative accommodations.

Anyway, here's a link to some plain-ish language EEOC info:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

I have a question for any who know the answer.

ExpressJet placed CS on unpaid administrative leave Aug 25, and every article says she would be terminated after a year. Why the unpaid leave? And why was she not terminated right away? Is the admin leave (unpaid) to allow time for the employer's investigation, and for the due process to unfold? Time for the corporation to make sure the laws supported firing her?

The suspension sure sounds like "administrative leave pending termination", since it's unpaid.

CS didn't file her EEOC complaint until last week, so I don't think that had anything to do with it. I'm not sure and will have to check, but I think she may have also filed a federal discrimination lawsuit in the last week or so. (Possibly federal lawsuit because 2 states are involved?)

I'm assuming that the substance of the suspension is for the employee not performing job duties. (And I think there is very likely much more to it than just the issue of the serving of alcohol, as I said earlier.)

ExpressJet is headquartered in Atlanta, and CS was domiciled in Detroit. Does that have anything to do with the admin leave process (two different states involved)?

Why the long period of unpaid admin leave?