Don't bring that dirty food in here!

[cdw]

You can't eat THAT here! (http://www.local6.com/money/3614199/detail.html) h/t dhimmiwatch

I am amazed when I read stories like this...after all, it's America..it's FLORIDA for god's sakes! I would be very disappointed if I weren't able to have had bacon all my life.

A Central Florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises. Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties.
She was then fired for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich. Local 6 News obtained the termination letter that states she was fired for refusing to comply with company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises.

She's suing of course. But the owner of the company feels it's justified and has done nothing wrong. After all, he's complying with the laws of the US and practices tolerance. rofl
It's just that pork is, well, DIRTY.

Can you imagine? Here you are, minding your own business, eating a blt and wham! Fired!

[ravital]

I've worked for an orthodox Jewish guy, who knew much, much better than this....

This employer needs to lose the lawsuit, he may never know it, but it will do him a world of good.

[Robert Harris]

And someone needs to give him a ham sandwich for lunch.

[RRedline]

Unbelievable! I can't believe that in the year 2004, a company would try to force religion onto its employees. I hope they lose the lawsuit.

Can a company legally impose a ban on certain food items based on religious reasons? I certainly hope not. I don't feel like having to eat fish on Fridays during lent.

[Sharondippity]

We should snap open a nice picnic cloth and feast on these items at the site:

http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23292


maybe have this baby turning on a giant spit over open flame:
http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?t=25279


:cool:

[ravital]

maybe have this baby turning on a giant spit over open flame:
http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?t=25279


:cool:
Spin it until it hisses.

And let's not forget snails in garlic butter and a good red table wine.

[Steve]

Companies, smaller ones at least, may generally do whatever they like as long as there are clear policies that have been communicated to and acknowledged by the employee.

I read in a business column last Sunday where a woman was fired for snacking at her desk. There was a clear policy prohibiting eating or drinking at workstations and she violated it and was fired.

If this company can prove that the woman knew there was a policy against eating pork products, she's out of luck and out of a job.

Company policies don't have to make sense, people, they just have to be uniformaly applied and not patently illegal. Violate them at your own risk!

[cdw]

I'm glad you brought that up because in the article it was saying how the station reporter had specifically asked her if there was anything she signed saying she understood that pork was not allowed on the premises. It had me wondering if it was legal if they had a written policy about it. I guess it is, as you say, depending on the size of the company. I don't think it can be an 'implied' policy though.... I think it has to be written in the company policy. No?

[RRedline]

Companies, smaller ones at least, may generally do whatever they like as long as there are clear policies that have been communicated to and acknowledged by the employee.

I read in a business column last Sunday where a woman was fired for snacking at her desk. There was a clear policy prohibiting eating or drinking at workstations and she violated it and was fired.

If this company can prove that the woman knew there was a policy against eating pork products, she's out of luck and out of a job.

Company policies don't have to make sense, people, they just have to be uniformaly applied and not patently illegal. Violate them at your own risk!But can a company impose a ban on a particular food item based solely on religious reasons? I could understand if the company banned certain items for secular reasons, but to quote the Qur'an in your justification? If this is legal, I am outraged.

[Sir Joseph]

The company can do whatever it pleases. It can have all employees watch Teletubbies once a week as a requirement for employment. IF, and this is a big IF, she knew that the rules were no pork, then she violated a company policy.

[cdw]

But, don't they have to be in writing? There has to be a written company policy, no? It can't just be 'understood' or 'implied'...can it? If she signed papers regarding the company policy (written) and that was not in there, then they can not fire her.

[Steve]

Cyd and Rred, as SirJ notes, any company of any size may enact any policy it chooses, so long as the policy is:

1. Not illegal (can't require gay people to wear badges reading "I'm gay!", e.g.)

2. Uniformly and impartially applied (management can't be exempted, e.g.)

3. Communicated and acknowledged (preferably in writing to make enforcement more straightforward but conspicuous posting of policies and frequent reminders usually suffice, too.)

4. Equitably enforced (typically requiring warning steps followed by punitive actions up to and including firing.)

From a practical perspective, the majority of companies avoid absurd policies if for no other reason than enforcing an absurd policy undermines managerial authority (Steve, I have to issue you a written warning for wearing blue to work today. You know it's against policy.)

To address your specific question, Rred, a company generally may not unduly infringe upon the restriction of religious expression. Few are the places that would ban the wearing of a cross, or a yarmulke, for instance. Handling of snakes or rolling in the aisles speaking in tongues could be fairly considered disruptive to the workplace, though, and so prohibited.

However, this employee's exercise of religious freedoms aren't being infringed. Her right to eat bacon is all that's being infringed. I see nothing illegal nor un-Constitutional about the employer's policy. The reasons for it are irrelevant as long it generally adheres to the four points I've given, above.

If, though, it wasn't in writing, acknowledged, and the employee wasn't given fair warning, then the employer is going to find a very secular and costly employment action being brought against him.

[Coot]

Typically, government(s) do take action against companies with repressive policies, especially policies based on religion, by excluding them from bidding on government contracts. I don't know how much, if any, government work this company is doing, but I would be surprised if local government took any such action against this company as it appears to be minority owned.

[RRedline]

However, this employee's exercise of religious freedoms aren't being infringed. Her right to eat bacon is all that's being infringed. I see nothing illegal nor un-Constitutional about the employer's policy. The reasons for it are irrelevant as long it generally adheres to the four points I've given, above.But her eating bacon isn't infringing on anybody's rights either. I don't understand how this policy can be justified? It is restricting people based solely on religion. Doesn't anybody else have any objection to this? If I was told that I could no longer eat pork in our company lunchroom, and it was because [INSERT TEXT FROM QUR'AN], I would be :friggin: pissed, and so would most of my co-workers. It should not be legal to do this.

[cdw]

I don't think it is...and I think the employer is going to find that out. :)

[Sierra Mike]

This bugs me too, and it seems like it should be illegal, though as Steve points out, there are incremental steps that could be taken to make this woman's dismissal legal.

SM

[cdw]

I dunno and I guess we will have to wait to let the courts decide. I believe discrimination, regardless of the size of the company, due to ones religion is illegal. Pork or no pork is a premise based only on the employers religion. It's not a harm to *anyone* or a disruption, it is an infringement of her rights due to the fact that she does not believe in a religious teaching in the Koran.
It will be interesting to see if this goes the full court way or if the guy settles it. I wonder...is she entitled to unemployment in the meantime or will he fight that saying she was fired for cause. Will unemployment allow that?
Gee...complicated, eh? :) Florida is good for these kinds of things, lol.

[Steve]

You guys are confused on one point, if I may say so.

Eating bacon has nothing at all to do with the employee's religion. She is not being discriminated against because of her religion.

She has been fired for breaking a company policy, a policy of which we know little else at this point, so it's all just speculation. The fact that policy is based upon the business owner's religious preferences is immaterial, as the policy in no way interferes with the employee's civil rights.

[Misu]

You guys are confused on one point, if I may say so.

Eating bacon has nothing at all to do with the employee's religion. She is not being discriminated against because of her religion.

She has been fired for breaking a company policy, a policy of which we know little else at this point, so it's all just speculation. The fact that policy is based upon the business owner's religious preferences is immaterial, as the policy in no way interferes with the employee's civil rights.

Actually her dismissal was entirely based on religion, although not her own - Islam forbids pork in their diet, to the point that any pork product brought onto the property "taints" that property. She stuck a pork product in the microwave in the kitchen, and thus tainted the kitchen. She ate a BLT in the break room, thus tainting the breakroom. She brought pork into the building, thus tainting their building. A company cannot enter into their policies anything having to do with religion, period. It doesn't matter who's religion it is - whether it's employee's or employer's. Had the owner of the company been Christian or Catholic, she wouldn't have tainted their kitchen, but because they are Muslim, she broke THEIR religious practices and lost her job over it.

It's the same thing as if the business owner suddenly began firing women for being in his presense without Burqa's on. If he is an Orthodox Muslim, he could very well state all females in his company must wear Burqa's - or he could simply not hire any females at all, since Orthodox Islam does not allow for females to work. That's breaking the law two-fold - sexual discrimination and imposing religious practices onto others. This guy is going to lose, big time.

[Misu]

Ok I just thought of a better example of the point I'm trying to make:

Say your boss is an Orthodox Catholic. Let's say he states that as long as you're employed there, you are not to eat any meat products on Friday or you will get fired if you, thus forcing you to observe Lent, even though you yourself are not of the same beliefs. He would be breaking the law. What this guy did is the same thing.

[ethics]

Say your boss is an Orthodox Catholic. Let's say he states that as long as you're employed there, you are not to eat any meat products on Friday or you will get fired if you, thus forcing you to observe Lent, even though you yourself are not of the same beliefs. He would be breaking the law. What this guy did is the same thing.
It's legal as long as the policy is presented to you and you signed off on it from the start. Religious based senior citizen homes have many policies pending to religion is but one example.

[cdw]

I'm not sure I understand your example Leon. Religious based senior citizen homes have policies pending to religion on their employees? Can you give me an example.

And as for the case above, I believe the policy regarding the pork is not stated in the written company policy, it's just 'understood'. That doesn't cut it.

[ethics]

I don't know about this particular issue but Jewish Senior homes have the same pig exclusions to the employees who work there. To exclude pork products from a kosher kept Senior Home is pretty lame in return.

SO if there's a policy, you signed a paper agreeing to that policy, it's fair game. Let me repeat that I do not know the details of the issue brought up first in this thread.

[Violet1966]

Leon's right. If you sign on the dotted line and are told the rules, even if they're religious based, your signature means you agreed. If you had a problem with that before signing, then that would be the time to gripe or simply move on. If this person knew it would get them fired by eating pork at work and signed something saying they wouldn't do it, then they inflicted their own wound.

[cdw]

I think they get around it because it is a religious based business to begin with...they can get away with discriminating and stuff because of it. I do not think that a business in the general sector is able to do the same thing.

I could very well be wrong. :) Wouldn't be the first time. or the second.

[Kangaroo]

A company may not take punitive action against an employee based upon religion, either the company's or the employee's. The policy is illegal. If she has a half-good lawyer, the employer will lose.

BTW, Steve, in most states it is legal to discriminate against gays in the workplace. You may not require them to wear a badge, but you may fire them or refuse to hire them simply for being gay. Most states and the federal government do not recognize sexual orientation as a protected demographic, as is age, gender, religion, race and national origin.

Business owners may tell their employees about their religious beliefs, but they may not take any employment action based upon their (the owner's) beliefs. This guy is completely uncovered. His company is not a religious organization. His policy wasn't written. His policy is illegal. The plaintiff's actions infringed upon no one else's beliefs. Allowing her to eat pork placed no undue hardship upon his business. He's got no case and will be broken in court.

[Fiona]

As stated by many, the company SHOULD lose. If she gets a good lawyer, it will. However, as also stated, the company can ask you to comply with anything it wishes, and you have the choice of agreeing or not having a job.

I mean, we THINK that we can not be discriminated against for our physical attributes, but this is not true. If you want a job at hooter's ya gotta look good in the outfit. etc etc... ;)

This will set precident and that is why I hope she wins. None of us want to be forced to do something because of someone else's religion... the otherside is, you have the option of not working there.

[Stiofán]

It's amazing how many of you enjoy living in a nanny state, where government tells us all what we can and cannot do.

What this lady has a right to do is get another job. Period.

Although I don't subscribe to this employer's definition of clean and unclean or their other religious practices, I'll fight for their right to run their business how they see fit. This isn't Tehran, where the mullahs tell you how to behave.

There are certain things business owners are mandated to do, and every year the burdens increase. That's fine. But as long as they don't discriminate, there's no law that says they have to allow people to eat bacon on their property. None.

Here's some pork for all of you socialists :kissmy:

Have a nice day.

[cdw]

A nanny state? rofl

I wouldn't work for the guy, nor would I work for one of those places that says you can't smoke on your own time, either. But. There are laws in place, she has been damaged by losing her job and if he wants can say she was fired for cause and she can't collect unemployment. That's wrong, screw him, pay up and then go on about your business. Hire non-eatin' pork people if ya want.
And that little rind you got showing there does NOTHING for me. :lol:

[Steve]

A company may not take punitive action against an employee based upon religion, either the company's or the employee's. Wrong. If the employee agrees to a stated policy as a condition of employment, as long as the policy is not illegal, the employer may take appropriate disciplinary action. This is pretty standard, vanilla employment law.

His policy wasn't written. His policy is illegal....He's got no case and will be broken in court.Is that true? I didn't read anywhere where the policy was unwritten. Are you just assuming that or have new facts come to light? {Never mind, I saw it. Must be going blind...} If, as you state, it was an unwritten policy, his "case" is weakened but not ruined if he can prove that all employees were aware of this policy and that it was periodically reiterated.

I've yet to see anyone make any kind of reasonable case as to how this woman's religion was infringed, in any way. Even she is not claiming that. At best, she can make a claim that his religious beliefs resulted in her firing. Surely no one here is saying that the owner of the business shouldn't practice his religious beliefs as he sees them?

As Stiofan points out, all this woman has the right to do is find another job, assuming there was no written or communicated/reinforced policy prohibiting her actions. If there was then, like I said, she be, um, "rolling in the bacon".......;)

[Stiofán]

Hire non-eatin' pork people if ya want.


Now that would be discriminatory!

[Steve]

Actually, I take back all my other posts, although they're still valid. They're moot, though.

Florida is an "employment at will" state. Read here (http://www.cafelaw.com/wrongterm.html#q1) for details.

Unless this woman can prove that the prohibition, in writing or otherwise, against eating pork violated her religious beliefs, she hasn't got a chance.

I really must remember to start double-checking state laws, they're all so different.

[ethics]

Good job on research.

[Fiona]

:thumbsup:

[Kangaroo]

An employer may not make employment decision based upon the employer's religion unless they have a "religious employer" exemption. This guy ain't one of those.


As to policies of a religious or quasi-religious nature promulgated by an employer . . .


Directly from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

"Employers must accommodate any employee who gives notice that these programs are inconsistent with the employee's religious beliefs, whether or not the employer believes there is a religious basis for the employee's objection."

Employees in right to work states still enjoy the protections of ALL federal laws.

[BigDeputyDog]

It's legal as long as the policy is presented to you and you signed off on it from the start. Religious based senior citizen homes have many policies pending to religion is but one example.

I know of this from personal experience... I worked security/tech support at a local Jewish Retirement Home. Employees were not to bring in pork products into the main dining hall. There was a little cubbyhole in the basement that had a couple of tables for employees to consume their pork tenderloins and bacon. Consumption of pork products anywhere but in that designated area could be grounds for termination...

BDD... :{)

[Steve]

Title VII sounds nice but is entirely irrelevant in this case, unless the woman is going to claim that eating a BLT is central to her religious beliefs or that the employer's dismissal infringed upon her religious beliefs which, knowing what I know of the Catholic faith, will be pretty damned difficult to do.

Federal laws don't apply in this case or, rather, they do but none have been broken.

[Misu]

Leon's right. If you sign on the dotted line and are told the rules, even if they're religious based, your signature means you agreed. If you had a problem with that before signing, then that would be the time to gripe or simply move on. If this person knew it would get them fired by eating pork at work and signed something saying they wouldn't do it, then they inflicted their own wound.

Ok then the question we need to ask is as follows: does a business policy carry more weight than constitutionally granted rights, because the pork thing is based on religious beliefs which are being forced on to other people.

I believe the only businesses that are exempt from this are non-profits, like churches and many retirement homes that are backed by churches, as well as women's and children's shelters backed by some sort of church.

[Stiofán]

What do you mean "forced onto other people"? Who has a right to eat bacon where ever they please? That's not a right. She can eat bacon on her own time.

[ravital]

The legal question aside, this employer is an idiot. This kind of policy does nothing but generate ill will and unnecessary friction between employees among themselves, and employees and management. I'm sure an employer could come up with a dress-code mandating very short skirts and stiletto heels for all female employees and very short haircuts for all male employees, on the grounds that his business "needs to project an image" and it might even be legal, it doesn't necessarily follow that it would be good employee-relations sense, or that even those who signed the dotted line would be happy about having to work there. It's counter-productive. Not everything logical or legal is necessarily desirable, and anyone with the acumen and gumption to build a business from the ground up should know better than that.

[ravital]

What do you mean "forced onto other people"? Who has a right to eat bacon where ever they please? That's not a right. She can eat bacon on her own time.
For the sake of argument, would you appreicate being instructed not to drive your car between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday in certain sections of Brooklyn, NY, U.S.A. because it offends the local Hassidic comunity? Or do you have the right to drive your car on any public street any time you want, as long as you're safe and quiet and don't lean on your horn at 3:00 am?

Eating pork is not smoking, it's not pouring tabasco over a steaming plate of food that might stink up the entire floor and trigger allergies, it's not playing a loud radio in your cubicle that would bother your co-workers. It has an absolute-zero effect on anyone and everyone. In fact, no one would even know that someone was consuming a BLT unless they specifically asked the employee, and I don't believe the employer even has a right to ask you what you're having for lunch.

[FrankF]

Leon's right. If you sign on the dotted line and are told the rules, even if they're religious based, your signature means you agreed....

No, actually if you sign a contract that is illegal... it is null and void, not worth the paper it is printed on even if you agreed to the terms of the contract at the time you signed it.

[RRedline]

For the sake of argument, would you appreicate being instructed not to drive your car between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday in certain sections of Brooklyn, NY, U.S.A. because it offends the local Hassidic comunity? Or do you have the right to drive your car on any public street any time you want, as long as you're safe and quiet and don't lean on your horn at 3:00 am?

Eating pork is not smoking, it's not pouring tabasco over a steaming plate of food that might stink up the entire floor and trigger allergies, it's not playing a loud radio in your cubicle that would bother your co-workers. It has an absolute-zero effect on anyone and everyone. In fact, no one would even know that someone was consuming a BLT unless they specifically asked the employee, and I don't believe the employer even has a right to ask you what you're having for lunch. :clap: Well said, Ravital!

[ethics]

Rav, I am actually surprised that a Jew would discard pork in the vicinity as you did above. I am not sure if you have been around Orthodoxy but let me tell you pork under the same roof is a big, big, offense.

[Violet1966]

No, actually if you sign a contract that is illegal... it is null and void, not worth the paper it is printed on even if you agreed to the terms of the contract at the time you signed it.

I know that can be the case with some contracts...which would be standard forms, but have you found any standard forms for employment out there? I haven't. I would think if there was so much room for possible wrongful termination, there would be a standard form out there?

[Steve]

Apples to oranges comparison, ravital.

[Misu]

I don't understand this - guys, what part of RELIGIOUS PRACTICE do you guys not understand as far as the banning of pork at this company? Do you guys understand that anything having to do with a religious belief or practice being forced onto someone, be it the beliefs of the few being forced on the many and vice versa, is illegal? That no one has the right to enforce their religious beliefs on you? So if you work at a business that is owned by a Roman Catholic, they do not have the right to enforce on you that you do not eat meat at lunch on their property, or if you work at a business owned by an Orthodox Jew, they do not have the right to force you to observe their no-pork religious beliefs?

Is it the fact that the employer's wishes are not being allowed that bothers you? I don't understand why you guys think an employer has the right to fire someone for not observing his religious beliefs. You can fire people for a multitude of reasons - but if you state you're firing them because they're a minority, or because they're handicapped, or because of religious reasons, you are breaking the law. Freedom of religion is a basic civil right. Period. No one can put in their business policies that their employees have to follow religious practices. It can be a matter of courtesy, as long as all employees agree. But to fire someone because they did not follow a religious-based company policy is against the law.

Why it's not black and white is a mystery to me.

[Misu]

What do you mean "forced onto other people"? Who has a right to eat bacon where ever they please? That's not a right. She can eat bacon on her own time.

And her own time was during her lunch break. But the question isn't whether she has the right to eat pork wherever she pleases - the question is whether this business owner has the right to incorporate his religious beliefs into company policy and then fire people for not complying to those policies.

[ethics]

Because you don't understand something doesn't mean the problem is with "us guys".

No one is forcing her to pray, or to be a Muslim, what they asked was not to eat unsanitary foods according to their practice. If she was warned, and had something to sign off on, then there's nothing for you nor anyone else to complain about.

Even her lawyer are not towing the religious line but:

attorney for Lina Morales, an administrative assistant fired in March 2003, says the company admits there is no written policy against pork. http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/florida/news-article.aspx?storyid=22463

If Morales wins this case it's not because of employer's policy but because they didn't have a written one.

As Stiofan mentioned, each business is run by Americans, and if there is no rights to be infringed upon, they can have policies on food and what is allowed and what isn't. As long as the employee understands these policies and agrees to work under these policies.

Jewish homes have similar rules and no one every questions this common rule of respect and decency.

[Misu]

So what you're telling me is that if a company decides to put into policy things that are clearly against the law, it's OK and legal as long as an employee agrees to it?

So what is the point of laws, then?

[ethics]

So what you're telling me is that if a company decides to put into policy things that are clearly against the law,
Show me where it is against the law.

[Misu]

Jewish homes have similar rules and no one every questions this common rule of respect and decency.

Because there are certain businesses that are exempt from these laws, such as Churches or religious-based nursing homes or shelters run by Churches and other religious groups. Most of these types of businesses are classified as "non-profit", or are backed by a "non-profit" entity, such as a Church or temple or synagogue.

This business was a telecommunications business. Nothing to do with religion and not a business people typically associate with religion, so they don't expect to have to follow religious practices - be it their own or someone else's - by entering the business.

[Coot]

I'm sure an employer could come up with a dress-code mandating very short skirts and stiletto heels for all female employees and very short haircuts for all male employees, on the grounds that his business "needs to project an image" and it might even be legal, it doesn't necessarily follow that it would be good employee-relations sense, or that even those who signed the dotted line would be happy about having to work there. It's counter-productive. Not everything logical or legal is necessarily desirable, and anyone with the acumen and gumption to build a business from the ground up should know better than that.
Have you eaten at Hooters lately? ;)

[ethics]

Because there are certain businesses that are exempt from these laws, such as Churches or religious-based nursing homes or shelters run by Churches and other religious groups. Most of these types of businesses are classified as "non-profit", or are backed by a "non-profit" entity, such as a Church or temple or synagogue.
Nursing homes are neither exempt nor "non-profit". If they were, people would be sticking their parents and grandparents there en masse.

This business was a telecommunications business. Nothing to do with religion and not a business people typically associate with religion, so they don't expect to have to follow religious practices - be it their own or someone else's - by entering the business.
Correct, unless they are provided with a clear, written policy about such rules.

Again, I ask you to show me these rules you keep espousing. Because quite frankly, free enterprise is for the people who run businesses as well. Eating pork is not a fringe right when there's a business policy against it.

Now if there were not a clear, written policy on this then Ms. Morales has a case. If the company provides the policy or better yet, Ms. Morales signature, then she is shit out of luck.

Steve presented the laws of business in that state and it clearly states that UNLESS eating pork was part of Ms. Morales' religion, no rights were circumvented.

[Misu]

Ok, here's the page listing the laws.

Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html)

This part in particular is why I am stating a religious-based business policy is against the law:


Discriminatory Practices
II. What Discriminatory Practices Are Prohibited by These Laws?

Under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:

* hiring and firing;
* compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
* transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
* job advertisements;
* recruitment;
* testing;
* use of company facilities;
* training and apprenticeship programs;
* fringe benefits;
* pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
* other terms and conditions of employment.

Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:

* denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.

Title VII

Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.


(I cut a lot of stuff out and only put what I am basing my statements off of).

The company enacted a policy that discriminates against Non-Muslims. Non-Muslims don't belief that pork is a dirty food and are free to eat it whenever and wherever they wish, but Muslims do hold this belief and do not have the same freedoms, as per their religios beliefs. Muslims hold the belief that simply bringing pork into their home taints it. They fired her because she tainted their business, which is based on THEIR religious beliefs, not hers.

[ethics]

You quoted the same thing Steve did in the same thread and he explained why this would still be legal for her dismissal IF she saw a written policy on this.

[Copzilla]

So what you're telling me is that if a company decides to put into policy things that are clearly against the law, it's OK and legal as long as an employee agrees to it?

So what is the point of laws, then?
What he's saying is that it's not against the law in the first place.

When you take a job, it's the employer's right to set the rules, and if you accept the job, then you are in effect agreeing with the rules, regardless of what they are.

Freedom of religion (or FROM religion) is not an absolute in the workforce. No goth tattooed Satan worshipper has a right to be hired at a Christian bookstore (as an extreme example). They can expect to offend all of the patrons and other employees, and so can expect they shouldn't even apply.

What this lady did in effect was drop a practice on them they found extremely religiously offensive AFTER the fact of her hiring. If she was a decent human being, she would have ceased, realizing how her actions were affecting her coworkers. Insistence on an action to enforce a principle isn't always nice.

Problem with this whole scenario is that the rules were not set in writing, and so the employer will probably lose the case. If they were in writing, they probably would win the case. If the employer were smart, they would have laid out the policy and stated that because the workers were largely muslim, and it was offensive to bring pork products into the workplace, that non-muslim people were asked that if they wanted to eat pork products for lunch then they needed to keep them off site, and would be permitted to leave the building to go eat. Problem solved.

[ravital]

Have you eaten at Hooters lately? ;) Several times, that's completely different. For one thing, I did concede "it might be legal" and obviously in the case of Hooters it is. And I don't know that the girls particularly enjoy it, but they seem happy.

But having dined there - if you can call it that - I know the food is nothing to write home about, the image is what they're selling.

I don't know what kind of business this employer is in, but it sure doesn't sound like he's in business to "promote" either curvacious femininity or Islamic values. All I'm saying is A) it's not smart, B) don't automatically assume it's legal (in the case of your employer picking your lunch menu for you).

[RRedline]

What makes this case very different from Hooters is in the justification for the dress code/appearance of their employees. It is not religiously motivated. Hooters doesn't make their female staff wear tight tops and skimpy shorts because [INSERT Bible Quote]. It has nothing at all to do with religion.

However, the Florida company IS using religion to restrict the lunch menu on their premises. It would be totally different if they said, "No more sloppy Joes because our cleaning person is sick of cleaning up the mess." However, they are saying that something can not be eaten because of a passage out of the Qur'an.

People do not want other people's religions to control them like this. As Ravital has said, it is just very bad business practice. Nobody wants to be controlled by religions that they don't even adhere to. Ms. Morales did not force her co-workers to eat pork. If they feel that it is tainting their building just by being in it, then I'm not sure what to tell them. People should not have any right to make others follow religious practices, even if it's an employer who states it up front and in writing. It's easier said than done to tell somebody that they shouldn't have accepted the position. If somebody is desperate for work, they may overlook some things that they may not like. I've accepted terms and conditions that I did not like at former places of employment, but I had bills to pay.

I've had a very difficult time forming an opinion on this case, and the only way I can argue myself to one side is by imagining myself in a similar situation. If my employer came to me right now and asked me to sign an agreement stating that I will no longer bring pork onto the premises because [INSERT Qur'an quote], I would not like it one bit, and I would let them know about it. Would I sign it? Yes, I probably would.

[Stiofán]

Let's all remember this is occuring on private property, not in some Hassidic neighborhood.

No one is keeping this woman from eating pork or worshiping at her alter of the Flying Pig at the local swine house. So she hasn't been harmed religiously.

I'm surprised some most vocal about the Patriot Act wants to unnecessarily restrict how a person can run their own business.

[ethics]

What makes this case very different from Hooters is in the justification for the dress code/appearance of their employees. It is not religiously motivated. Hooters doesn't make their female staff wear tight tops and skimpy shorts because [INSERT Bible Quote]. It has nothing at all to do with religion.
Oh jeez, Rred, you are seeing red everytime there's a topic on religion. Indeed, so focused on religion that you missed the gender differences under Hooter's work policy. Hooters does not allow, under their policy, for males to be waiters. But that's ok for you, "it's not religion".

However, the Florida company IS using religion to restrict the lunch menu on their premises. It would be totally different if they said, "No more sloppy Joes because our cleaning person is sick of cleaning up the mess." However, they are saying that something can not be eaten because of a passage out of the Qur'an.

And Jews do the same thing at nursing homes, for example. I'd hate to see a rabid religious basher tell them what they can or can not do when it comes to religion.

As Ravital has said, it is just very bad business practice.

Perhaps, but it's their choice.

Nobody wants to be controlled by religions that they don't even adhere to.

And yet, I have to wear business attire, I can not eat "crap and junk food" at my desk, and better yet all my phone conversations are recorded and stored away for years. But hey, it's not religion that's telling me this, so it's ok.

Ms. Morales did not force her co-workers to eat pork.

Non-sequitur as far as I am concerned. This isn't about others, it's about Ms. Morales not following (pending court result) written policy.

It's easier said than done to tell somebody that they shouldn't have accepted the position. If somebody is desperate for work, they may overlook some things that they may not like.
If someone is "desperate for work" they wouldn't be this stupid IF there is a clear and written rule.

I've had a very difficult time forming an opinion on this case
Could have fooled me, man.

[RRedline]

Leon, I seriously had a hard time on this one. Honest! I've been accused of being anti-Christian, and here I am defending the Christian in the story.

I never said that a policy based on secular reasons is automatically acceptable. I'm just stating that a policy based <i>strictly on religion</i> is unacceptable. (Note I am not using the word <i>legal</i> because I'm not sure about the legality of it.)

You are right, though. Religion does bug me quite a lot when it is used to control others, such as in this case. That Ms. Morales' co-workers choose not to eat pork does not upset me in the least. I don't care if they spent eight hours a day in their religious buildings praying to Allah. I just don't think it's fair that they are forcing one of their religious beliefs onto others, even if only while inside this one building. Contract or not, I just don't like it.

If you have something to say, just say it. Do you think I'm anti-religion?

[ethics]

Rred, you are anti-religious. Your responses are predictable to me and while that's fine and good, and I respect that, I will try to counter that opinion with hopefully something substantial IF it warrants it.

Again, I respect your stance, but I just disagree with it especially when there are rights of the owner to consider, man. I am all for separation of Church and State but sometimes (and not saying you) people go to far in to the other side of the pendulum.

[ravital]

If someone is "desperate for work" they wouldn't be this stupid IF there is a clear and written rule.
Sorry if anyone has already said this, but it's an inescapable conclusion, that if the woman had been warned about it several times and persisted, she probably wanted to force this into a courtroom.

On another angle: There was a case in Florida some 20 years ago, where two women were denied a job as cleaning staff (after hours) on the grounds that they didn't speak Spanish, which was a requirement for anyone working at the company. They were not going to be the employees of some janitorial services contractor, but actual employees of the company, which was specifically hiring for those positions. They sued and won.

Why doesn't the same logic apply here? Hey, it's private property, it's written policy, they knew about it. The court's reasoning was that the language was not necessary for those women to perform their duties - no more than avoiding pork at lunch is required for this employee to perform her work. So how is this different?

Just asking.

[ethics]

On another angle: There was a case in Florida some 20 years ago, where two women were denied a job as cleaning staff (after hours) on the grounds that they didn't speak Spanish, which was a requirement for anyone working at the company. They were not going to be the employees of some janitorial services contractor, but actual employees of the company, which was specifically hiring for those positions. They sued and won.
Can you give me a source please? I am not accusing you in lying but specifics matter.

[Steve]

So how is this different?

Just asking.For one thing, very small companies are pretty much exempted from much federal and state employment regulations. It's not very well-known, but if that sandwich shop on the corner doesn't hire minorities and makes it publicly known, there's not much anyone can do about it. For instance, Title VII, quoted by another member, doesn't even kick in until you have more than 14 employees (http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/operating/legal/laborlaws.html). Combine that with a state that is an "employment at will" state, and individual workers at very small companies have the right to show up, shut up, and get paid for the work they do.

Unfair? Maybe, sometimes, but it's the law.

[Stiofán]

On another angle: There was a case in Florida some 20 years ago, where two women were denied a job as cleaning staff (after hours) on the grounds that they didn't speak Spanish, which was a requirement for anyone working at the company. They were not going to be the employees of some janitorial services contractor, but actual employees of the company, which was specifically hiring for those positions. They sued and won.

Why doesn't the same logic apply here? Hey, it's private property, it's written policy, they knew about it. The court's reasoning was that the language was not necessary for those women to perform their duties - no more than avoiding pork at lunch is required for this employee to perform her work. So how is this different?

Just asking.

Being able to speak a language you've never learned is not a choice. Eating bacon at work is. Again apples and oranges.

Where in any law does it say every person has the right to eat bacon at someone elses property? We're not talking about doing diabetic testing or injecting insulin, we're talking about bacon.

A better question Rav, is it the kind of America you want to live in when persons can come onto your property and do things offensive to your religion, after fair warning. If they don't want the stench of bacon in their offices, they should have that right.

Let's turn it around. Let's say this woman is a muslim, and her co-workers continually eat bacon around her while at work. Should she have the right to to sue to keep all pork products out of the building because it interferes with her religious practices? Obviously not. It's not her building or her business. By the same token she can not force her muslim employers to put up with her pork munching habits while on duty. It's not her building and it's not her property.

It comes down to this for me. I'm not a muslim, but I'll fight for their property rights in America. I'm more concerned with the property rights of individuals than I am about the bacon eating rights on someone else's property.

[RRedline]

Rred, you are anti-religious. Your responses are predictable to me and while that's fine and good, and I respect that, I will try to counter that opinion with hopefully something substantial IF it warrants it.

Again, I respect your stance, but I just disagree with it especially when there are rights of the owner to consider, man. I am all for separation of Church and State but sometimes (and not saying you) people go to far in to the other side of the pendulum.Argh...I'm sorry you feel that way, about my being anti-religion. I find many posters on here to be very predictable. I would think that most people who post over a long period of time and are consistent in their thinking would be at least somewhat predictable. I just don't consider myself to be against religion. I am against those who wish to use it to control the behaviors of others, such as in this case. Religion (as with most things) is no problem for me as long as it is not being used to control those who do not wish to be controlled. If that makes me anti-religious, then I will order the T-shirt and display it proudly.

How many of you would support your company if a similar rule was handed down to you? Would you happily stop eating pork in your lunchroom if you were told that it may no longer be done, and you were given a quote from the Qur'an as justification? I doubt it very, very much that any of you would accept it the same as you would accept a secualr rule such as "no more snacks at your desk."

Companies are told what they may and may not do in many ways. If companies were told that they may not do what this telecommunications company is doing, it would be just one more thing on a very big list. For example, employers must pay a minimum wage, and many employees must be paid time and a half for hours over forty in a work week. Why should the federal government be able to force companies to do those things? Is it unfair? After all, if an employer wants to pay $1.00 per hour with no overtime pay, and there are people willing to accept those terms, why not? Why is it okay to regulate wages, but it is not okay to stop them from forcing religious practices?

[ethics]

How many of you would support your company if a similar rule was handed down to you? Would you happily stop eating pork in your lunchroom if you were told that it may no longer be done, and you were given a quote from the Qur'an as justification? I doubt it very, very much that any of you would accept it the same as you would accept a secualr rule such as "no more snacks at your desk."
First of all, I seriously doubt that the Quran was shown, or cited, I am fairly sure that something along the lines of respect were used. Even without a written policy, I am fairly sure that Mr Morales was not thrown in to the room and put the fear of Allah in to her via Quran. Secondly, we already do things we would love NOT doing.

For example, I'd rather be told I can't eat my favorite food, whatever it may be, in exchange of working less hours. It's not in my job description to work 15 hours a day and sometimes weekends, but I do them for the fear that the next college kid with water still behind their ears, would have no qualms about living here.

So to answer your question, yeah, I'd do it. Many people who are unemployed would do it in a heartbeat.

.

[Steve]

Why is it okay to regulate wages, but it is not okay to stop them from forcing religious practices?I will ask one more time for someone, anyone, to demonstrate to me either how this woman's religious rights were infringed or how the owner of the company imposed his religious beliefs upon her?

What he asked all of his employees to do was to refrain from a practice considered abhorrent by his religion. She chose to ignore that request. Twice. That doesn't make her the poster child for religious repression, it makes her a jerk, one lacking common courtesy and respect for the values of others. It makes her the sort of ass who takes up a handicapped parking spot, who ignores "no smoking" signs, who cuts line at the theater.

I find it peculiar that all of the sound and fury regarding the so-called "infringement" of her "rights" completely ignores the gross, blatant, and disrespectful infringment of the business owner's rights.

But I suppose it just depends on whether one opposes expressions of religion that aren't conducted behind closed doors or whether one supports the rights embodied in our Constitution, one of which is the free exercise of religion, free from governmental meddling that runs the danger of resulting in legislation that permits the consumption of BLT sandwiches within the workplace :rolleyes:

[RRedline]

First of all, I seriously doubt that the Quran was shown, or cited, I am fairly sure that something along the lines of respect were used. Even without a written policy, I am fairly sure that Mr Morales was not thrown in to the room and put the fear of Allah in to her via Quran. Secondly, we already do things we would love NOT doing.The owner said that pork is an unclean meat, and he just so happens to be Muslim. Until he explains in a secular way how pork is unclean while other meats are clean, I can only assume that his reasons are religious. Do you have a non-religious explanation of how pork is unclean? I am dying to know.

[Steve]

It's called trichinosis. Increasingly uncommon but still a cause for concern.

[RRedline]

But I suppose it just depends on whether one opposes expressions of religion that aren't conducted behind closed doors or whether one supports the rights embodied in our Constitution, one of which is the free exercise of religion, free from governmental meddling that runs the danger of resulting in legislation that permits the consumption of BLT sandwiches within the workplace :rolleyes:Eating a BLT is not a religious expression. You said it yourself! So exactly which religious expressions were these Muslims barred from doing? This isn't about what they were doing, it's about what they wanted others to stop doing. If they had to follow their religion, then others had to follow it. In my book, this most certainly IS forcing religion onto others. I'll take your word for it that it is legal to do, but I don't like it.

People should not be forced to adhere to other people's religious beliefs. That puts me on the same level as healthy people who park in handicapped spaces?

[ravital]

A better question Rav, is it the kind of America you want to live in when persons can come onto your property and do things offensive to your religion, after fair warning. If they don't want the stench of bacon in their offices, they should have that right.
Are we talking about my living-room or my business? I would say that would make a significant difference, woudln't you?



Let's turn it around. Let's say this woman is a muslim, and her co-workers continually eat bacon around her while at work. Should she have the right to to sue to keep all pork products out of the building because it interferes with her religious practices? Obviously not. It's not her building or her business. By the same token she can not force her muslim employers to put up with her pork munching habits while on duty. It's not her building and it's not her property.
It's not a question of who the Moslem is, it's a question of who is imposing what on whom. In the privacy of my home, I smoke, and anyone who doesn't like it is free to leave. I do not impose the stench of my pipe on co-workers or strangers in a restaurant or other place, even if it were my own business. It's my home. My business on the other hand - if I had one, even if I'm the owner, founder and creator, a place that would exist solely thanks to my efforts and my hard work, is still a place where I have to acommodate other people. That also means that other people have accommodate each other. They can't impose sexist humor or religious observances on each other, they can't object to co-workers wearing purple because it offends someone. It comes down to common-sense and give-and-take. We can have a law and regulation for every little thing like how to tie our shoelaces and make life unbearable, or we can practice the simple common-sense that all human beings are endowed with. In a place of business, there is a common-sense limit to how much even an employer can demand.

[ravital]

I will ask one more time for someone, anyone, to demonstrate to me either how this woman's religious rights were infringed or how the owner of the company imposed his religious beliefs upon her?

The owner did not impose religious beliefs on anyone. He imposed a religious observance on her.



What he asked all of his employees to do was to refrain from a practice considered abhorrent by his religion. She chose to ignore that request. Twice. That doesn't make her the poster child for religious repression, it makes her a jerk, one lacking common courtesy and respect for the values of others. It makes her the sort of ass who takes up a handicapped parking spot, who ignores "no smoking" signs, who cuts line at the theater.

Strange, you're quite quick to reply with the "apples and oranges" argument, so I will point out that it applies here. Eating a sandwich is not smoking, taking a handicapped parking spot or cutting the line at a theater. All these have a real and measurable effect on others. The slice of meat between two slices of bread consumed by one person has no such effect on anyone. I completely agree that if she has been warned (evidently she has), and repeated the behavior, she was looking for a court case. But having worked for a Orthodox Jew, who had just as much ground to object to the consumption of pork on his premises but was much too smart to ever make an issue of it (and that was a company of 9 employees), I can tell you that the real jerk here is the employer.



I find it peculiar that all of the sound and fury regarding the so-called "infringement" of her "rights" completely ignores the gross, blatant, and disrespectful infringement of the business owner's rights.

Again, he imposed a religious observance on another person. There are limits to what an employer can enforce.

But since Florida is an "Employment at will" state, I don't see what the problem is for this employer to hire only Moslems to begin with - problem solved.


We do not, in America, have "the right not to be offended" (if we did, I would have seen to it a long time ago that all TV be commercial-free, to name just one example). No one came into this man's living-room or back yard to barbecue baby-back ribs. That would have been an infringement on his rights. He chose to be in business, there is a minimum he will have to put up with to accommodate the people he wants to perform work for him. If he has an idealized view of what his little green acre should be like, if he wants his business to be a little Moslem haven where all employees observe the same cultural conventions, given the size of his business, he could have, as you pointed out, hired only people with the same cultural background.

[ravital]

Can you give me a source please? I am not accusing you in lying but specifics matter. I understand the request for sources, perfectly fair. This was back in 1983 or so, I doubt very much that I'll be able to find anything on it without access to some paid-for case-law database. So I won't blame you if you dismissed this as a cop-out. I do tend to rely a lot on memory and personal experiences. Sorry about that. I sure don't expect anyone to take everything I say without questioning it, I'm just sorry I don't have a verifiable source on this one.

[ravital]

Being able to speak a language you've never learned is not a choice. Eating bacon at work is. Again apples and oranges. Come on, do you know where that logic leads?

"It's not my choice that I was born with poor vision, why should that keep me from a job as an airline pilot???"

As recently as a few years ago there was a lawsuit against an airline for discrimination based exactly on that. They even had the nerve to invoke the Americans with Disabilities act.

[Steve]

He chose to be in business, there is a minimum he will have to put up with to accommodate the people he wants to perform work for him. Untrue. See my previous comments regarding the application of Title VII and also "employment at will".

[ravital]

Untrue. See my previous comments regarding the application of Title VII and also "employment at will".
Both of which mean, as I noted earlier, that he could have hired only Moslems. And chose not to do so.

[Steve]

So he chose poorly, as did his employee. Whoop-ti-doo.

[cdw]

This is going to be pretty interesting to see the outcome of the case. :)