Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
no, it is the same. both cases were because of their religous views and because muslims are in a protected class, they are given a free pass.
either make it the same for both or give both a free pass.
No, the truck drivers are EMPLOYEES the company is required to give a reasonable accommodation, which they admitted they didn't.
The Bakery is about anti-discrimination laws, in the Masterpiece cake shop case, not employment law. Anti-discrimination law says that you can not refuse service to a person based on the sexual orientation of that person in Oregon. The bakers refused to sell the couple a product that they would have sold to a straight couple. In the Sweet cakes case the ruling was based on the bakery owner publishing the personal information of the couple online. If the bakery owners were Muslims the outcome would have been the same.
Two different laws, two different outcomes based on those laws.
no, it is the same. both cases were because of their religous views and because muslims are in a protected class, they are given a free pass.
either make it the same for both or give both a free pass.
Not exactly. There is a reasonable accomidation clause, that is what this was about. An employer has to accomidate the religious beliefs of their employees as long as it doesn't have more than a minimal burden on the business. In this case, having them deliver something else instead would have been a reasonable accomidation as long as it didn't have more than a minimal impact on the business. Now again, I don't know enough about this specific case, but the employer admitted liability in this case.
As far as the bakery case, again the reasonable accomidation clause comes into play, this time in regards to no more than a minimal burden placed on the consumer. Saying we won't do it period, puts that burden on the consumer, saying I won't do it mysel, but can get you someone who will (which the bakery did not do) likely would have met than standard. This doesn't match exactly to the bakery case since parts of what transpired were different, but the same thing could have been done if they went that route.
I would also argue that in civil cases like this, $240,000 damage seems excessive. This element of damages includes the pay you would have received if your employer had not fired you, as well as any earned and unpaid wages, overtime, or other compensation the employer has withheld. Doubt they lost $240,000 for losing this job.
I'm not sure how they came up with the $240,000 figure, but the firing was from 2009, so it could have been lost wages over a period of time. Also the article doesn't mention if it was $240,000 each or $240,000 split between the two of them.
I'm not sure how they came up with the $240,000 figure, but the firing was from 2009, so it could have been lost wages over a period of time. Also the article doesn't mention if it was $240,000 each or $240,000 split between the two of them.
Still, seems quite excessive to me. In a so called wrongfully termination civil cases like this.
1. The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.
Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.
In my humble opinion, accommodating this employee's religious beliefs would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business.
The employer did not fire the two Muslims because of their religious belief, let's not get too excited about this. They were fired because they couldn't do the job.
2. According to LAW, An employer does not have to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.
again, if you cannot do the job, maybe you should seek other employment opportunities. You were FIRED because you couldn't do the job. Has nothing to do with your religion. As a employer, the company does not have to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer.
3. Wrongful termination cases are civil lawsuits. If you file a civil wrongful termination lawsuit, you (the plaintiff) are asking the court to order your former employer (the defendant) to pay money to compensate you for losses caused by the termination.
What earnings have you lost because you were fired? This element of damages includes the pay you would have received if your employer had not fired you, as well as any earned and unpaid wages, overtime, or other compensation the employer has withheld.
This case is not the same as the Muslim woman vs Abercrombie case.
The trucking company needs a better lawyer. Not sure this will change the outcome, but this does not change the fact that the trucking company did not discriminate against them because their religious belief. They have a business to run.
The standard is "a reasonable accommodation." In the case of the Muslim truck drivers, the company had often allowed drivers to trade loads - a reasonable solution - but apparently a new dispatcher decided to enforce a no-trade policy.
Interesting information - I wonder if the Muslim Judge had anything to do with the outcome in this case.
Star Transport shut down in March of 2015 - the "judgement" is pretty worthless except for the publicity surrounding it, the 20 employees of Star Transport that no longer have a job and the possible precedent for employers.
I do not agree with laws permitting discrimination against religious beliefs during a hiring process, but if a religion - like Islam in this case - makes you unfit to do your job, then you should not be hireable.
This decision places employers in a difficult situation. Should they hire a religious person if said employee's religion is likely to make performing their job difficult? I would think it would be untenable to hire a person who is unable or unwilling to do the job he applied for. So, in practice this decision could easily mean muslims are unqualified to work as air hostess/host, a waiter, a cook, a truck driver, pilot or train driver as all of them may have to deliver or prepare products their religion forbids them to consume. If you take it one level up/away from the products Muslims are also unable to work in administration in many companies or in logistics generally or even stock markets as all may relate to alcohol and pork.
In trucking, this isn't an unreasonable request. Give them another load.
Would you say similar for the Christians at the bakery or pizza place refusing to cater to same sex weddings?
If not, you're demonstrating a major double standard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If this was really the answer!
