Yes, because, clearly we have had no updates to our OSHA standards since the fifties and sixties. Plus, that's a celeb chef TV show. Hardly a commercial kitchen. And dress codes, as required by the state, is exactly the issue.
The problem is religious in nature. Employees have the right to wear clothing that is required by their religion. Im sure she could sue because she had a verbal contract with the employer but she can also sue because they violated her rights as an employee to wear clothing required by her religion.
The temporary state of the economy is immaterial to basic matters of individual liberty.
This is not temporary, it is cyclic. It gets like this on an irregular but consistently repeating cycle. During periods of prosperity and low unemployment, it gets better for a while... but the wheel turns and employers use that time period (often fairly long) to put the squeeze on employees, hard... and it doesn't necessarily "go back to normal" when prosperity returns. A new norm is established. It is like ratcheting a pulley ever-tighter.
Employers have the upper hand in labor markets where labor is plentiful and the worth of labor is less than or equal to the current compensation offered it. Employees have the upper hand in labor markets where labor is limited and the worth of labor is greater than or equal to the current compensation offered it.
Regardless, the job belongs to the employer, and he or she is free to offer any compensation for any task he or she wishes to hire people to do. If the compensation is too low, no one will take the job, and if the employer wishes to make "wear pants" part of the job description well - the job is owned by the employer, not the employee. Demanding that the government interfere to tilt the balance of trade in your favor is hiring a bully to help you take something that belongs to someone else.
I don't know why I have to keep reiterating this... in the relationship Employer->Employee, the vast majority of the power is held by the Employer.
One of the purposes of a government devoted to individual rights is to keep powerful organizations from abusing the less-powerful individual.
Okay - she's not a cashier at a restaurant or kitchen. She was (and I'm gonna say that 'lightly' considering she never even logged in a single hour of training) a BK employee. You ever seen a single BK, McDonalds, Wendy's cashier who didn't wear pants?
There is no right to wear clothing required by her religion. However, when the manager agreed to it, she suddenly had a validated exception from the dress code which would exist even if it wasn't religious in nature.
you have to keep reiterating it because it is A) simplistic B) incorrect and C) irrelevant.
that is partially correct. government exists to keep any entity from abusing individual rights. relative power is immaterial - a weak person stealing from you is just as much an abuse of your property rights as a strong person doing so. However, rights are negative, not positive things, and powerful organizations do not abuse your rights by not giving you something (like a job). If Burger King attempts to steal this womans' property, silence her right to free speech, or take away her guns, let me know.
Burger King is doing to this woman what MOST large corporate employers (much of the labor marketplace now) are doing: attempting to enforce a level of conformity without regard for individual rights like, in this case, freedom of religion. BK could accomodate this woman's deeply held beliefs with a MINOR accomodation that would not impair her ability to do her job or the site's ability to function. When enough employers do this, they're forcing people to choose between important issues of conscience and being able to work and pay their bills.
Corporations trend together in terms of many of the requirements they lay on employees. Many of these are based on liability and insurance; others are based on generic templates for corporate structure like this ICS 9001 thing. As time goes by and more and more employers end up as part of this megacorporate conglomerate structure, more and more of them will be laying on the employee requirements that trample individuality indiscriminately. Employees will have fewer and fewer options to "just go work elsewhere", when almost everywhere else is laying the same requirements on them.
Your ox may not be being gored today, but let this case go and others like it and one day it WILL be your ox who is getting gored by an organization too large and powerful for you to defy alone.
actually, she doesThere is no right to wear clothing required by her religion. However, when the manager agreed to it, she suddenly had a validated exception from the dress code which would exist even if it wasn't religious in nature.
actually, she does
if the accommodation required to allow her to meet the requirements of her faith is not unreasonable, the expectation is that the employee will be accommodated to facilitate her religious practices
no. she did the correct thingThen she never needed to ask permission, BK had no choice in the matter and there's no point in this entire thread.
/thread
Christian Woman Fired from Burger King for Wearing Skirt Instead of Pants | Work + Money - Yahoo! Shine
That the Equal Employment Opportunity is backing her is ridiculous.
no. she did the correct thing
she notified the employer of her religious practices and the employer accommodated her
until it did not
THAT is why this thread exists
And she couldn't wear the proper uniform due to her religious beliefs, which she explained at the interview, and was fired because of it. That's something management cannot do without facing recourse.
And she couldn't wear the proper uniform due to her religious beliefs, which she explained at the interview, and was fired because of it. That's something management cannot do without facing recourse.
actually, she does
if the accommodation required to allow her to meet the requirements of her faith is not unreasonable, the expectation is that the employee will be accommodated to facilitate her religious practices
Are Rastafarians entitled to smoke weed at work? As part of the requirement of their faith, of course.
If businesses were not FORCED to submit to other people's displays of their religion, then we wouldn't even be talking about this right now. There are pants that are MADE for women. They are made specifically to fit a woman's body. Therefore, this girl is the one being unreasonable when she could easily wear women's pants which are NOT men's clothes, regardless.
If businesses were not FORCED to submit to other people's displays of their religion, then we wouldn't even be talking about this right now. There are pants that are MADE for women. They are made specifically to fit a woman's body. Therefore, this girl is the one being unreasonable when she could easily wear women's pants which are NOT men's clothes, regardless. Nobody is picking on her, nobody is singling her out, nobody is making fun of her religion, and IMO those are the times when "freedom of religion" is being attacked, not because someone says you have to wear pants to work. This is just so stupid, and I am so sick and tired of these frivolous lawsuits. It's just disgusting.
Pants "made for women" isn't the issue. I don't know if you are familiar with, or know any Pentecostals, but they are one of the more fundamentalist brands of Christians, even more so than fundamental Baptists, which was the type I was raised in. They don't care if it's pants made for women, or pants made to fit men. The issue isn't the fit, but that they believe women wearing pants of any kind equates to women wearing men's clothing. They don't wear makeup, they don't cut their hair, and they wear loose-fitting plain dresses or skirts, which are very long, with (typically) flats for shoes. They are generally very modest and pleasant women to deal with in my experience. The issue here, is whether or not BK was being unduly harmed by allowing this girl to wear a long skirt, rather than pants. According to the job description given (cashier), I can see no reason that a long skirt would be a liability or safety concern for BK.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?