- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 5,134
- Reaction score
- 6,123
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
According to an investigation by the EEOC which forms the basis for suit that is exactly what occurred. (see below)
I dont think we really know that. She is claiming that. I think we can all agree that people will fabricate in order to win. (either side)
I side with the employee here.
BK expressly set forth the dress code...Bk allowed the employee to dress in a manner that would respect the employee's religion. There was never a problem regarding this during the hiring process. The prospective employee fully informed BK that she would need to dress in a manner which respected her religious beliefs. BK agreed to this.
It was after the girl was hired that BK changed their position and thereby acted in a manner which speak to religious discrimination. The employee attempted to contact the various managers and her phone calls were never returned.
The following is a press release from the EEOC in this matter.
Grand Prairie Burger King Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination
Teen Employee Fired for Refusing to Comply with Company Dress Code, Federal Agency Charges
DALLAS – Fries Restaurant Management, LLC, the owners / operators of a Grand Prairie, Texas Burger King, violated federal law by firing a cashier on her first day of work because of her religion, Christian Pentecostal, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, (Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-03169-M), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Ashanti McShan, a member of the Pentecostal Church, adheres to an interpretation of the scripture about the wearing of clothing that is befitting of specific gender. She informed the company of this aspect of her faith during the job interview, and was told that she could work in a skirt instead of the Burger King uniform pants. However, the EEOC said, when Ms. McShan arrived at orientation, she was told by store management that her skirt was an unacceptable alternative and subsequently sent home. McShan’s calls to higher management went unreturned and she was never asked to return to work, the EEOC said.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief to ensure that no further discrimination takes place.
“Accommodating Ms. McShan’s religious beliefs would have been simple and cost the company nothing,” said EEOC Trial Attorney Meaghan Shepard. “Management’s failure to comply with federal law deprived this teenage girl of the opportunity to work during her senior year of high school.”
Regional Attorney Robert A. Canino of the EEOC’s Dallas District Office added, “We haven’t come far enough in our respect of religious liberties at the workplace if we have employers saying that uniform policies trump a religious observance without articulation of any hardship posed by letting an employee ‘hold the pickles’ and ‘hold the lettuce’ while wearing a skirt.”
In fiscal year 2011, more than 4,000 charges of religious discrimination were filed with the EEOC nationwide.
Grand Prairie Burger King Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination
So you're saying you prefer to let businesses dictate to people over their individual conscience, even when accomodating them would do no harm... really?
According to an investigation by the EEOC which forms the basis for suit that is exactly what occurred. (see below)
That is absurd and I will not treat it as serious.
I think that there could be a harm. This sets a dangerous precedent like I stated above. You start making exceptions and other will want to be accomodated. This type of thing cannot end well. Religion and spirituality are both very important. But it has no place in the business world (or politics for that matter). But when you allow people to dictate your business or policies because of their beliefs you will lose control. `
People have choices. If BK has a dress code, and her religion forbids it, she needs to seek employment elsewhere.
Though that should be respected and allowed, obviously. :mrgreen:
And if no employer would accomodate her then I guess you'd say she is free to starve to death then?
Jobs don't fall off trees like apples these days.
As long as they shave their legs.
She says the interviewer told her she could wear the skirt.
Verbal contract.
Dude, think about it... employers can be damn near as oppressive as any dictatorial government. The dictator has you in his palm because he has the Secret Police and all that crap... the EMPLOYER has you by the purse strings, by the way you make your living and pay your bills and support your family. The economy is bad and jobs are hard to come by.... and let me tell ya, lots of employers are seizing this opportunity to squeeze their employees as hard as they can, and pile as much stupid control-freak **** on them as they can get away with.... and that is a LOT because so many people are desperate to keep their jobs.
If you're for freedom, you need to recognize that we need to prevent ALL big orgs from abusing the individual needlessly, whether those orgs are governmental or corporate.
Fair is fair.
No Jihab in work place, no fundamental long dresses either.
In other words....no religious fundamentalism of any kind in the work place thank you very much!
most jobs dont have a uniform and many that do allow skirts or pants. Very few places of employment do not allow skirts at all.
You do realize the EEOC is not a court of law and they are acting based on what this woman has told them right?
Possible Dismissal
If the EEOC does not have jurisdiction, or if your charge is untimely, we will close your charge quickly. We may also close your charge quickly if we decide that we probably will not be able to find discrimination. If your charge is dismissed, you will be notified.
Investigation
How we investigate a charge depends on the facts of the case and the kinds of information we need to gather. In some cases, we visit the employer to hold interviews and gather documents. In other cases, we interview witnesses over the phone and ask for documents by mail. After we finish our investigation, we will let you and the employer know the result.
How long the investigation takes depends on a lot of different things, including the amount of information that needs to be gathered and analyzed. It took us – on average – nearly 6 months to investigate a charge in 2004. We are often able to settle a charge faster through mediation (usually in less than 3 months).
Subpoena
If an employer refuses to cooperate with an EEOC investigation, EEOC can issue an administrative subpoena to obtain documents, testimony or gain access to facilities.
Possible Action After Investigation Completed
If we haven’t found a violation of the law, we will send you a Notice-of-Right-to-Sue. This notice gives you permission to file a lawsuit in a court of law. If we find a violation, we will try to reach a voluntary settlement with the employer. If we cannot reach a settlement, your case will be referred to our legal staff (or the Department of Justice in certain cases), who will decide whether or not the agency should file a lawsuit. If we decide not to file a lawsuit, we will give you a Notice-of-Right-to-Sue.
Right. So you prefer to let employers dictate to employees, and tell them if they want to be employed they will have to give up the dictates of their conscience, violate their own deeply held beliefs, and either suffer the guilt this choice will impose on them or else suffer unemployment... even if the accomodation is a TRIVIAL minor thing.
Really?
Damn.
That is not the case in this instance
Right. So you prefer to let employers dictate to employees, and tell them if they want to be employed they will have to give up the dictates of their conscience, violate their own deeply held beliefs, and either suffer the guilt this choice will impose on them or else suffer unemployment... even if the accomodation is a TRIVIAL minor thing.
Really?
Damn.
Right. So you prefer to let employers dictate to employees, and tell them if they want to be employed they will have to give up the dictates of their conscience, violate their own deeply held beliefs, and either suffer the guilt this choice will impose on them or else suffer unemployment... even if the accomodation is a TRIVIAL minor thing.
Really?
Damn.
Right. So you prefer to let employers dictate to employees, and tell them if they want to be employed they will have to give up the dictates of their conscience, violate their own deeply held beliefs, and either suffer the guilt this choice will impose on them or else suffer unemployment... even if the accomodation is a TRIVIAL minor thing.
Really?
Damn.
The company's unwillingness to allow a MINOR variation that will make no functional difference to accomodate a religious belief that is extremely important to this woman, is shocking.
Well not shocking... I've seen firsthand what douchebags employers can be especially in recent years. For frack's sake it's not like she's insisting on working naked in high heels to please the Almighty Zarquon or something. :roll:
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 Goshin ... I only say that if you are a religious fundamentalist - left or right- do not try to push your ideas on your employers throat.
That's all.
Maybe BK was the only job she could find that actually offered her employment. Times are tough. And again, this is a trivial, minor accomodation.
Actually it is the case in this instance. BK has a clear, well known policy that a uniform is required and that that uniform is a shirt and slacks. This woman knew about it and she still went looking for a job there.
That is not what is happening in this case. The lady wanted to fulfil her religious obligation to wear a skirt. She says the interviewer told her it would be ok. Then she was fired for not wearing pants.
Allowing someone to wear a skirt while working at BK is a minor accomodation that hurts no one. Also, as Turtle pointed out, IT IS THE LAW that reasonable accomodation must be made for religious requirements if it is feasible to do so in the worksite in question. In this case there is no question that a skirt would harm nothing.
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?