General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMuslim truck drivers who refused to deliver beer win $240,000 lawsuit
Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2015, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)
An Illinois jury awarded $240,000 in damages and back pay to two former truck drivers who claimed religious discrimination when they were fired in 2009 after refusing to make beer deliveries.
A jury was convened to determine damages after US District Court Judge James E. Shadid ruled in favor of Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale when Star Transport admitted liability in March. The men, both of whom are Somali-American Muslims, were represented by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must make accommodations for workers' religious beliefs unless doing so would impose "undue hardship" on the business.
Read the rest at: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1027/Muslim-truck-drivers-refuse-to-deliver-beer-win-240-000-lawsuit
Edited to add...
EEOC press release on the case from May, 2013...
http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm
DU discussion from September on a similar case:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7145256
Response to PoliticAverse (Original post)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warpy
(111,277 posts)only to drive the truck and help unload cardboard boxes of it. Their hands would never have been sullied and they don't have the right to force their religious proscriptions onto people who aren't of their religion.
I don't agree with the interpretation of Title VII this jury ruled on. I hope it is overturned.
1939
(1,683 posts)For pharmacy employees and birth control.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)If it's part of your job and it's legal, do it.
This is not the same as such things as accommodations for religious holidays. That ruling is flat wrong.
Response to Warpy (Reply #2)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warpy
(111,277 posts)if their religions will forbid them to do any part of the job.
People with morbid religious scruples are going to find themselves less employable than ex cons.
Response to Warpy (Reply #6)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Unless it's a religious organization that is hiring.
Mosby
(16,319 posts)If there is anything that would prevent them from doing the job as detailed on the job description.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)And I'd get real specific in the job description.
This ruling will cause more problems than it solves.
Warpy
(111,277 posts)since it's a question of whether or not an applicant can do the job--all of it.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)and lost the suit, then no, I don't think it would "squeak by".
The law is what it is - if there is a way to accommodate religious beliefs that don't present an undue hardship to the employer, then the employer is required to provide the accommodation.
And there was obviously no undue hardship here, as the company permitted drivers to switch loads previously.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)before you accept employment MAKE SURE IT FITS WITH YOUR RELIGION
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)people would unanimously be going ballistic over this. But for some tolerance is most assuredly a one-way street.
Remember Hobby Lobby, you goddam hypocrites? I do.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)As a nurse I could refuse to administer calcium channel blockers claiming they were developed with embryonic tissues.
Refuse to administer certain vaccines that used fetal cells to develop growth mediums.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)This has become just plain silliness. No one is asking pharmacists to take the birth control drugs or morning after pills, or clerk to marry people of the same sex themselves, or drink the liquid that they are delivering. STOP THE NONSENSE!
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)So pardon me if I laugh at them.
Now, I await the first lawsuit when companies refuse to hire religious people because demanding a religious accommodation places an undue hardship on making profits and companies choose to avoid the problem.
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #3)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I, to, am a devotee of the zHigh Priest Eich-pi-El
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #10)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)but we add White Russians and nice rugs that tie the place together.
Response to hifiguy (Reply #15)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #28)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)to be a pony.
Which from a brony is very high praise.
Dr. Strange
(25,921 posts)It's just, like, his opinion, man.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The Church of the Latter-Day Dude: http://dudeism.com/
Come join the slowest-growing religion in the world Dudeism. An ancient philosophy that preaches non-preachiness, practices as little as possible, and above all, uh
lost my train of thought there. Anyway, if youd like to find peace on earth and goodwill, man, well help you get started. Right after a little nap.
First, you might want to get ordained as a Dudeist priest. There are almost 300,000 worldwide.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Anything you say is a religion is a religion. How you gonna prove it is or isn't?
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)If your religious beliefs would interfere with your doing the job, then go get another job!!!!!!!!!
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)MUSLIMS can't drink beer.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Not one bit different than the fundys who won't fill birth control prescriptions.
HORRIBLE decision and I hope it is overturned on appeal.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,579 posts)Seems odd to me.......
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)shipments containing alcohol? A question which apparently according to the
EEOC and the law would have been improper.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,579 posts)still seems funny to me. I haven't read the article though to know if this was a general distributor or a beer distributor. See if its a trucking company delivering all kinds of stuff, I could see not giving them this assignment. Kind of like a person who is Jewish taking off Jewish holidays. It just feels like there is a detail missing here somewhere. I suppose I could read the article............
Skittles
(153,169 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)So there's that.
Logical
(22,457 posts)MowCowWhoHow III
(2,103 posts)I need a drink.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)Give me a break!!!!!! There is a war in this country but it is not on Christmas; it is on common sense!
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)This part of the civil rights act has been in place since 1973 or 1974.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Observant jews regularly swap shifts so as to keep from working on Saturday.
The drivers in the EEOC suit didn't work less than other drivers, they just swapped deliveries.
Apples, apples.
dhol82
(9,353 posts)The men were not asked to work on a holy day. They only needed to deliver a caseload of merchandise.
What's the problem?
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)It's a religious accommodation, which when reasonable, companies are required by law to allow.
The company in this case admitted they were wrong, since they permitted drivers to switch loads all the time, but when these guys wanted to because of what they would be hauling, they fired them.
dhol82
(9,353 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)This law has been on the books for 50 years - it's part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If the trucking company allowed other drivers to switch loads and routes without considering it an undue hardship, why not these guys?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. and so claiming later that it was a hardship doesn't hold much water.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)No one is making them DRINK the beer.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)They didn't have to drink the beer, serve the beer, come in contact with the beer in any way, etc. Can I refuse to deliver Korans because they contain blasphemy? Where is this religious nonsense going to end?
Skittles
(153,169 posts)why should anyone be rewarded for refusing to perform their job duties? When they don't work, someone has to do their work for them - it's bullshit.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)It's not like they were saying they wouldn't work - they just wouldn't haul beer.
Have you never traded shifts with a co-worker because they had something important they had to do? I know I have.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)if you don't want to haul beer, find a job where hauling beer is not one of your duties........ever had a job where beer was not involved? I know I have.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Beer was among those goods, but not the only one. If beer was the only product they delivered, I would agree with you 100%.
But if they allowed people to trade hauls/routes for non-religious reasons, which they did, then there is no reason they couldn't allow people to trade hauls/routes for religious reasons.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)find a job where you don't have to deliver ANY PRODUCT of which you do not approve
it's fucking NONSENSE
before you accept a job MAKE SURE YOU CAN PERFORM THE DUTIES
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)and I have no problem with that. If it's an easy accommodation that doesn't present an undue hardship to the business, I see no reason not to do it, unless the owner is just trying to be an asshole, which seemed to be the case here.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)END OF STORY
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)*DONE HERE*
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)All of those around here who are defending the man should remember you condemned Hobby Lobby for making the same argument regarding birth control.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)In the Hobby Lobby case, a corporation was demanding that it be able to force the religious beliefs of the owner onto employees in their private lives.
This case is two men asking to switch loads, which the company admitted in court it had allowed other drivers to do. Allowing these guys to do so would have made no difference - the shipments still would have been delivered.
Where I do see this having implications is in businesses that provide services for weddings. A bakery can't say "We refuse to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples because of our religious beliefs", but an individual baker or decorator may well be able to say "I refuse to bake/decorate the wedding cakes for same-sex couples because of my religious beliefs", and if there is another baker or decorator at the business that can do the work, they'll most likely be covered by the law.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)If they switched loads, and that was commonly done, and it caused no problem for the business, then I reconsider my position stated elsewhere on this thread.