It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US Sues School over Denial of Muslim pilgrimage

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 09:48 PM
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

Yes, like what if I am a Christian, but I need 4 weeks to be able to fly over to Israel and back to be at Bethlehem at Christmas, and at Jersualem at Easter, so I need the time off? Or I will SUE YOU?

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 09:49 PM
reply to post by sonjah1

One thing that seems to be glaring to me is that this woman resigned.

She was not fired, she was not suspended.

She decided to resign. Therefore, how can she sue for back pay?

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by thegoodearth

Oops I missed that part! I thought she was still employed.

Even in CA (tough on HR laws), if you voluntarily quit/resign, then it is difficult to even get unemployment...

Unless....your employer doesn't keep good records, show up for hearings and the like?
edit on 13-12-2010 by sonjah1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by sonjah1

2007- begins job
2008- refused three weeks of leave during school term for pilgrimage
2008- resigns
2010- sues for back pay and compensation

I really want more information here.
Is she working now? Where?

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by thegoodearth

Interesting article, and it is bringing forth a whole lot of questions, when it comes to a private employer and a very religious employee. As much as, being devout is something that has come into the light these days, there is a fine line between the nature of the business and what reasonable accommodations an employer should make to an employee and should not be expected to.
The first and foremost question should be asked, did this woman inform her employer that she was a Muslim? Most employers are forbidden by law to ask that question, as that is a clear cut violation of the federal employment laws, and many do not ask or inquire on such, thus it would be on her to do such.
The next part, has to be what is a reasonable request for time off. Most of the time, the employer, if they have the staff are usually, within reason, able to accommodate usually do.
But go beyond that, take out all other labels, and the question has to be boiled down to the following: Should a private employer be forced to grant a 3 week leave of absence to an employee on the ground of religion, when it is not related to the job that they were hired to do? And how would they apply this equally to all of the different religions that an employer may hire, would they be required to accommodate all others who wanted that amount of time off?
Even though this is someone who is a devout Muslim, the question must be asked, would this person want the entire month for Ramadan off? What if this person was Jewish, should they be accommodated for all of their holy days that would be encountered throughout the entire school year? What about devout Catholics, would they not be granted equal time off for the different holy days?
And the final question, is does this school have a bank of subistute teachers to accommodate those needing time off, for the different length of time?
In this case, the opinion I have is that she did not want this job, nor was she serious about such, her request was unreasonable, for the length of time that she had. The public school, being a part of the government, can not reasonably accommodate any religion, as it would invalidate the separation of church and state.
The school was correct in their assessment of her request and denying it. She made a choice to resign it, but the federal government should never had gotten involved, in the lawsuit, as it is a groundless case. If the school has granted her the leave, then they would be guilty of allowing religion to take and dictate policy, and by denying her the leave, she is claiming discrimination. It was a lose/lose situation that she deliberately put the school into, and should not profit from such.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:14 PM
I found the DOJ press release.

Not much more information about the case, however, the below is unsettling:

"Employees should not have to choose between their religious practice and their livelihood," said Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "Federal law prohibits employers from treating employees and applicants less favorably because of their religion, and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for the religious beliefs and practices of their employees."

"The EEOC is committed to ensuring that individuals are protected from religious discrimination at work," said Jacqueline A. Berrien, Chair of the EEOC. "We are pleased to foster this important collaboration with the Department of Justice to enforce the laws that ensure our workplaces are free of bias."

This is the first lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice as a result of a pilot project designed to ensure vigorous enforcement of Title VII against state and local governmental employers by enhancing cooperation between the EEOC and the Civil Rights Division.

Now that the DOJ has somewhat distanced themselves from CAIR and taken up with ISNA, another front operation of the Muslim Brotherhood (according to FBI documents dating back to 1988), we can expect more of the same.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:23 PM
reply to post by sdcigarpig

I can assure you that I have never been granted the "right" to go to services during work hours.

Also, my children are given much flak at school for missing one lousy hour in the mornings of Holy Days to attend services.

Am I going to sue?
Heck, no.

Besides not having the interest, I would not win.

In addition, I believe, and I think most Americans will agree, that three weeks off for an employee that has been under your employ for a year is excessive (unpaid or paid), especially when teachers are given three months off a year already, as well as major breaks.

Most people have to work for years to accumulate that much time off, and as far as unpaid leave goes, the Family Medical Act will allow for up to twelve weeks, however, it must be under documentation by a physician.
edit on 13-12-2010 by thegoodearth because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:26 PM
reply to post by thegoodearth

Nice find, goodearth!

And this could be the beginnings of a thread on its own:

Now that the DOJ has somewhat distanced themselves from CAIR and taken up with ISNA, another front operation of the Muslim Brotherhood (according to FBI documents dating back to 1988), we can expect more of the same.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:30 PM
reply to post by sonjah1

Such usually dissolve into a bunch of name calling and bashing on all sides...
I am sure there are threads showing these alliances.

That said, I believe that cultural jihad is being waged on the United States
in very insidious ways like this lawsuit, the OK amendment injunction, and
the demonization of anyone who tries to speak out.

This isn't about religion. It is about an ideology that will not fit in a secular society like the United States.

I am surprised that this thread has stayed as civil as it has, so far.

Facts are facts.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:37 PM
This woman sounds like a grifter.

I am sorry, but if you get a job under certain terms, and you want to change the terms after they have been agreed to, YOU LOSE. Plus, she quit.

She should have thought about this ahead of time or asked the school board a few years ahead for special consideration for this pilgramage. If she handled this more responsibly earlier, she wouldn't have an issue. Her request un the time frame she layed out was unreasonable... therefore these discrimination laws do not count.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:40 PM
reply to post by DINSTAAR

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice is the one suing, and they don't agree.

I am stunned that our own government filed suit.
What will this lead to?

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:29 PM
reply to post by thegoodearth

I didn't see it anywhere but I wonder is after all the hassles did she actualy go on Hajj in 2008??
It doesn't say..

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:29 PM

Originally posted by lestweforget
The whole concept of a muslim in a position of teaching is worrying enough.

Not that you care, did you know if not for Monasteries and Muslim schools in the so called Dark Ages, much of the accumulated knowledge we had gathered over two thousand years would have been lost. Don't be a bigot.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:09 AM
The Hajj is preformed during a specific month of the year. That is why she requested time off during the school year, it's not like the pilgrimage is a vacation, it's a sacred right.

The pilgrimage occurs from the 8th to 12th day of Dhu al-Hijjah, the 12th and last month of the Islamic calendar. Because the Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar, eleven days shorter than the Gregorian calendar used in the Western world, the Gregorian date of the Hajj changes from year to year. Ihram is the name given to the special state in which Muslims live while on the pilgrimage.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by whatukno

That's what I was talking about earlier in the thread; it's always after Ramadan and the Eid; however the hajj is the epitome of the sacred pass--and she should have known about it way in advance. (Well at least a ball-park time because it depends on when the mullah says according to the lunar calendar/he actually sees the moon).

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:41 AM
reply to post by thegoodearth

The government itself filing the suit sounds an awful lot like overcompensation for peoples' (small minority) anti-Islam stances.

I have had to work on Easter, Christmas, and most other holidays with the risk of losing my job or being written up if I chose not to. Was I being discriminated against? No. Did I feel like I was? Yes, but I had no legal recourse because I chose to work at that particular place and they have rules that state that one must work a set number of holidays (so the same people aren't forced to work on all of them). The place this woman worked had its own rules which she agreed to, implicitely, in being employed there.

If all people had the right to call off of weeks of their job for religous reasons, then, maybe, the person would have the right to sue. Otherwise, this is just balony.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:04 AM
It appears to be a trend: Get hired, then screw up the workplace based on religious "obligations". Work comes first then personal beliefs...

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 03:09 AM
Although I put up the above, I want to state that this suit is bogus in my opinion. I remember this cab driver who gave me his card one day in the hotel, asked me to send customers his way, but every time I went to call him, he said he was going to be busy praying.

After a while, I stopped calling him. He came back in and asked why I never sent him anyone, and I told him, that he just wasn't very convenient and if his religion got in the way of his business that's his problem not mine.

This is the same thing, the Hajj is something that can be done years down the road, this lady should have requested the time off ahead of time, I am sure that there is a conversion calender that she could have used to figure out an appropriate date to do the Hajj on. That way she could have kept her job and still fulfilled her religious duties.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:00 AM
reply to post by whatukno

Thanks for clarifying that point-
The article should've also made that point,clearly.

It doesn't say why it had to be during the work year.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:19 AM
reply to post by backinblack

That is a question I really want to know, as well as where she works now.
Did she go in 2009?
or 2010?

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in