No it's not. That's their job. Their existence is ridiculous. If an employer wants to ask its' employees to wear pants, skirts, or nothing at all in order to perform the job - the job belongs to the employer. Not the employee. Folks shouldn't take jobs that would require them to violate their conscience and then expect special treatment when they refuse to do so.
theere is a question of harm. the chain reaction it could set off. we also do not know what took place in the interview other than her claims. Furthermore they did not let her wear a skirt for a while then changed their mind. She was told no at her first attempt to wear a skirt to work.
-absurd excuse snipped
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?
jobs have requirements. For instance if you were out of work and looking really really hard for employement I wouldnt be able to hire you unless you met certain criteria and were willing to adhere to my companies policies. How tough the employment market is isnt going to come into play. If you cannot abide by the rules in your employee handbook, you'd be let go.
I have been involved with employment discrimination cases quite extensively on a variety of levels for the claimant at times and for the employer at other times and have worked closely with investigators . It is rare that the EEOC files an actual lawsuit on behalf of an individual and the investigation process is quite extensive.
This is the process used by the EEOC.....
The Charge Handling Process
Because telling you to keep your religious crap at home is uncalled for. Right...
*
And if the handbook violates one's rights......
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.
Say, did you miss the part where its a law?
This is not being forced to suck a dick and its simply not comparable. There is no reason what so ever I should humor your absurdity.
No more uncalled for than telling you to keep your anti-religious crap at home, bud. Or to leave your dignity at home, or your whatever.
There are rules about how employers can treat employees... get over it. They are employees, NOT SLAVES.
^^^^i am not going to claim to have any experience in employment discrimination as it has never come up. However when BK denies telling her it was ok, and it is a case of he said/she said and BK has a handbook that she likely signed off on saying she read, understood and agreed to follow I cant see this going well in court for her. Her case does not appear provable.
Back in my fast-food days everyone had to wear pants due to shortening and hot-water splatter. It was a safety issue born from an OSHA reg outlining proper PPE.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.
i dont think that is appliciable here. However if a handbook violated peoples rights then the handbook would be wrong.
You're the one being absurd, sir. Are you going to try to claim that there is not and never has been sexual abuse of employees by their bosses?
There are laws to prevent employers from abusing employees. Employers do not get to have it all their way. Reasonable accomodation for religious issues is such a law, whether you like it or not.
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.
You're the one being absurd, sir. Are you going to try to claim that there is not and never has been sexual abuse of employees by their bosses?
There are laws to prevent employers from abusing employees. Employers do not get to have it all their way. Reasonable accomodation for religious issues is such a law, whether you like it or not.
it is not law that I know of. You can show me the law if you'd like.
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.
If the dress code was due to safety reasons then I do not believe she would have a basis for suit as she would not be able to perform due to safty reasons. If it is a simple dress code and the employer said no based upon her religion then I believe she could go forward and sue. Unless it caused undue hardship on the employer(see below)
If the manger had the authority to speak for BK yes they could bind the corporation.
An accommodation is not a matter of right in as much as if it is practicable and does not cause undue hardship then those who are subject to these laws must comply.
"The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business."
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
You're the one being absurd, sir. Are you going to try to claim that there is not and never has been sexual abuse of employees by their bosses?
Is it part of the Christian religion that women cannot wear pants?
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.
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?