Sharia in America: EEOC Sues Transport Company for “failing to accommodate” Muslim Truck Drivers

Having read the article and looked at this, the following can be stated:

All employers are at a loss when it comes to issues like this. There are some questions that are considered taboo and forbidden to ask, because if they ask, then it could be construed that the employer is discriminating against them for one reason or another.

But that being said, the question that should be asked, is did the employees who are saying that they were fired due to religious reasons, did they not ask what all the job entails, did they inform the employer of any potential problems that they would have doing with the job?

Most employers will make reasonable accommodations for the job. Most jobs, when you are hired, have some sort of job description, that explains what the nature of the job happens to be, what all is expected of the employee, and the responsibilities that they have to uphold, to include standards.

If they outright refused the assignment and chose not to do their job, and did not inform their employer of any problems then they should lose the case. However, if they did inform their employer about any and all problems and ask for reassignment and accommodations, and it was refused, then they might have a case, depending on how the judge finds for such.

Ultimately it will come down to if they did inform the employer and if it can be proven in a court of law, along with what the company policies happen to be.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by beezzer

 

Okay Beezzer... Creepy Avatar change. (shivers)

I think that the drivers have a point IF they were led to believe they wouldn't have to deliver alcohol when they were hired and they asked about it, being that it was a major concern to them.

However, if they went into the driving job with a "we'll see about that" attitude after being told alcohol would be part of it...then buyer beware and they bought their own problem. Tough cookies....

That is why it will be interesting to read the motion. I believe it is the latter, but companies are not always great at CYA.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Quite frankly an employer shouldn't have to ask any questions, it's not their job. As an employer I am not going to run out and study up on Hinduism before the hiring processes so I can ask "just the right questions". That would be up to person who is asking for the job - they know if something may interfere with the job, and they need to be the one to bring it up. If they don't, then that is on them, not the employer.

Not only that, but you wont be able to know which "Muslims" are religious, and religion does have a way of flying right out the window for most. I have seen many a Muslim business owner have not one problem selling alcohol all day long. I have seen many Muslims have no problems with making food items that had pork in them.

Only the prospective employee knows which their own personal beliefs may interfere with a job, therefore, it is up to the employee to address any potential conflict.

The only thing an employer should ask after a full description of the job responsibilities is "Is there anything that would prevent you or otherwise interfere with doing this job?" That's it, if the answer is no, then it means no. Later a person cannot sue if they didn't bring anything up because for a few minutes they had the floor to bring up anything and everything.

reply to post by nenothtu

nenothtu

Far too much real world respect? I think you are confusing "respect" with "obsequiousness". There is a difference. I can respect someone without being obsequious to them - if they require me to be obsequious, it's no longer respect, as they are then disrespecting ME.

Religion doesn't get ENOUGH respect, but it sure gets a lot of forelock tugging. The problem is, people seem to have forgotten where one ends and the other begins. I respect nearly all religions, but bow to none.

I didn't mention respect at all?
I think you quoted and replied to the wrong person.
The post you quoted of mine doesn't have the word respect in it.

Very odd.


This is my post you quoted.

stargatetravels
Tough, get a different job.
Your religion is private and personal and if you do not want to handle booze or whatever else, then swap routes or get another job.
If these guys, or any people from any religion, refuse to do their job, then give their jobs to people who need and want them
Religion has far too much real world impact.

.

They got hired to do a job. They refuse to do the job. They get fired. End of story. Those muslims knew what the job would be and they went for the job anyways. They are just trying to cause trouble. Idiots like them will just make it harder for other muslims to get employment.

This reminds me of the muslims who went to the Catholic University in Washington DC. After getting in as students, they then turned around and sued the school to try to make them take down the images of Jesus that are around the CATHOLIC campus and the Catholic Basilica. Troublemakers.

reply to post by beezzer


Doctors can refuse to give abortions; they don't even need the pretense of religion to do so. In most cases, a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion has an obligation to refer a patient to another doctor who may be willing, but by no means are doctors forced to abort fetuses. The linked blog seems to be full of bigoted, hate-mongering, misinformed garbage.

What it comes down to is this: if a work-related task discriminates against or transgresses on your religious customs and beliefs, you have the right to refuse to perform it. If you are fired because of this, you can sue. If your employees have legitimate concerns with performing a task, rather than force them to choose between their job or their religion, just assign them a different task. I'm assuming that this company delivered more than just alcohol.

From the article:

If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so.

Rather than force the employees to deliver alcohol after they voiced their obligation to their religion necessitates for them to refuse to do so, the employer could have assigned them a different load to deliver. It comes down to whether you feel a stronger sense of duty to your deity or your employer.

Let's say you are a Christian working a job that requires you to piss on various images, and your boss brings over an image of Jesus Christ and asks you to piss on it. You refuse on the basis of your religion, and he or she fires you. The common argument being made in this thread suggests that, because images of Christ exist, you should assume that you will have to piss on them eventually or pass on the job. Clearly, this is an uninspired argument fueled more by mob mentality and anti-Islamic sentiment than logic. What if the truck drivers were devout Christians, Jews, or Hindus, and all had a religious dilemma of equal importance with their work.

The reason why the employer is being sued is because he mishandled the situation. Instead of accepting religious boundaries and working around them, he or she chose to grind an axe. If an employee comes to you and says, "this task goes against my religious beliefs," what do you think is the proper way to deal with the situation?

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


Star Transport delivers goods for many large retailers. What they are delivering is those things the retailers sell. Retailers in America sell many legal items, alcohol is one of them. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect as an employee that you will be delivering alcohol at some point.

You accept a job, which has a reasonable and logical expectation that you will be asked at some point in the future to deliver alcohol, for a company that pays the customer if they do not deliver on time. I reiterate: Star PAYS their customer if they do not deliver on time.

Now, you work for a company that will have to shell out money if they cannot deliver on time, and have a reasonable expectation of at some point in the future delivering alcohol for one of their customers.

You have no reasonable expectation of being able to pick and choose which loads you will take when you take the job, which clearly states they hire only the most professional of drivers... why? because they will be shelling out money if they don't deliver on time.

No employer should be asked to shell out money every single time one of their employee's refuses to do their job, that infringes upon the rights of Star to run their trucking company in a manner above and beyond their competition, your rights cannot trump the rights of another regardless of whether or not that other is a business.

What they should have done BEFORE taking the job which had a reasonable expectation of being asked at some point to deliver alcohol is to state they are able to work for the company so long as what they deliver is not alcohol...

if they did not do this, if they took the job stating they could fulfill the expectations and demands of the job, then there is no reasonable expectation for them to be able to keep their job when they find themselves unable to fulfill the expectations and demands of the job.

They should have found employment that was more agreeable to them.

Pamela Geller the Islamophobe queen has it wrong again. You cannot fire a person for their religious beliefs. Star could have just as easily given them another load to haul that didn't conflict with their beliefs instead they chose the wrong way to deal with the situation. And unless Star only hauls alcohol then the people crying they shouldn't have taken the job should learn a thing or two. So companies having to follow the law is forcing Sharia on Americans the Founding Fathers would ask Geller if she had ever read the Constitution. Her answer of course would be what's the Constitution.

reply to post by buster2010


Technically the first amendment clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

Therefore, can the government force either the hand of the trucking company or the employees. Technically, this matter should be settled between the parties involved and should have nothing to do with the government.

They were not discriminated against, therefore, what right does the government have in any of it as the government can favor neither one over the other? The government stepping in, is far overreaching their own authority.

We as a nation need to grow up, and stop asking the government to step in and solve every little issue.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


If I took a job from an employer, my job is to do what my employer requires. If it comes to a time when I must choose between what my employer decides is policy or what I decide is personal faith, then I have to choose between job or faith with one or the other losing.

Example: If I am the cake person at Walmart and a gay couple wants their wedding cake made there and Walmart decides it is their policy to do it, then either I must make the cake -or- I quit my job. It is not my place to sue Walmart for forcing me to comply with their policy. I should have known I would have to do that when I took the job.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

You have no reasonable expectation of being able to pick and choose which loads you will take when you take the job, which clearly states they hire only the most professional of drivers... why? because they will be shelling out money if they don't deliver on time.

You really don't know much about trucking do you? After you drop off a load you contact your home office and they give you a list of jobs to choose from not we only have one load and you have to take it. They do this to give people a chance to get home more often.

reply to post by buster2010


It is the business owner's prerogative to hire and fire. If the employee won't do the job as required, he can be fired. End of statement.

All of this about religion is a smokescreen.

Think about it this way - If you were a regular employee of Star and you just up and refused to haul the assigned load, how do you think they would react? You are an employee who basically said, "No, I won't do my job."

It doesn't matter what your reasons are. Why should they be special?

reply to post by buster2010


And if there is only one load or all the loads are alcohol?

reply to post by buster2010


You do not know the day, or the case, neither one of us do. I do a little about trucking since we use trucking companies frequently, but what its like for the drivers I don't know.

I do know about business, and perhaps they didn't have another driver, or these drivers were new and low on seniority and so they were the only ones at the time available for this load.

The particulars matter little, in this case, I think it is not the responsibility of the government. These men were hired even though they were Muslim, they had gainful employment and then turned down a run... the company fired them...

The government cannot have any say so in the matter. It's not their place....

OpinionatedB
reply to post by buster2010

 

Technically the first amendment clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

Therefore, can the government force either the hand of the trucking company or the employees. Technically, this matter should be settled between the parties involved and should have nothing to do with the government.

They were not discriminated against, therefore, what right does the government have in any of it as the government can favor neither one over the other? The government stepping in, is far overreaching their own authority.

We as a nation need to grow up, and stop asking the government to step in and solve every little issue.

edit on 2-3-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

Seeing how Star is not crying we are Christian so it isn't one religion against another but Star is violating the First amendment because it is violating the drivers right to exercise freedom of religion. So the government is not overstepping it's authority it's following the law unlike Star.

reply to post by buster2010


No, technically, Star is not.

The 1st Amendment prohibits government from doing that, not private business.

reply to post by buster2010


The free exercise of religion verses the free exercise of non-religion. In this case it cannot be a matter for the government to decide if the first amendment is to be followed.

ketsuko
reply to post by buster2010

 

It is the business owner's prerogative to hire and fire. If the employee won't do the job as required, he can be fired. End of statement.

All of this about religion is a smokescreen.

Think about it this way - If you were a regular employee of Star and you just up and refused to haul the assigned load, how do you think they would react? You are an employee who basically said, "No, I won't do my job."

It doesn't matter what your reasons are. Why should they be special?

You are right and wrong at the same time. They have a right to hire and fire as they choose. Let me point out where they screwed up. When the drivers told them we refuse to carry these loads because it is against our religion that is when Star screwed up. You cannot fire a person for not wanting to do something that is against their faith. People have the right to exercise their religion.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by buster2010

 

The free exercise of religion verses the free exercise of non-religion. In this case it cannot be a matter for the government to decide if the first amendment is to be followed.

Where does the Constitution say anything about non religion?

reply to post by buster2010


And it is a free country. They were not slaves being forced to do anything. The fact they were hired proves they were not being discriminated against based upon their religion.

The government can have NO say in this matter if the first amendment is to be followed, otherwise, the government oversteps the bounds of their own authority by either favoring or not favoring one's rights over another's.

They both have rights, both star and the men... the problem arises when you tell the government to take authority where they have none. The men are free to be Muslim in this country, and free to work wherever is agreeable to them. Star has rights in this country to practice their business how they see fit, which means hiring and firing according to the needs of their business.

If the government steps in, they violate the first amendment.