"in need of Christian employees."

[n2doc]

Letter seeking Christians as employees raises concerns
By Caitlin Cook
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The director of operations of 20 Subway restaurants across West Virginia may have violated the state Human Rights Act when he sent a letter to several churches and congregations saying his company was "in need of Christian employees."

Kermit Ball, the director of operations for Hammond Group Inc., which owns the Subways, sent the letter, publishing employment opportunities at the restaurants. It was sent to at least four churches and congregations in the Charleston and Huntington areas.

The letter, and subsequent statements from Ball, seem to imply that Hammond Group Inc. would prefer to hire Christian employees, finding them more honest.

The letter, in part, reads: "Due to changing times, we are looking for good honest people. If you have anyone in your congregation in need of a job, or new career, please have them contact us at the address provided above. We are looking for sandwich artists, shift managers, assistant managers and supervisers. The Hammond Group owns and operates 20 Subway restaurants. We are a Christian based company and in need of Christian employees."

more

http://www.wvgazette.com/Business/201308180023

If they truly wanted honest employees, they would hire atheists.

[rocktivity]

1. The only person allowed to legally advertise for Christian employees in the US

is Christ.


rocktivity

[undeterred]

2. I don't think there is any evidence that a particular religious belief

or the lack of it influences ones ability to make a sandwich.

But if the implication here is that anyone who isn't a Christian need not apply because they aren't "honest", that's discrimination. And Subway should pay the price for it, the same as any other kind of discrimination.

[enlightenment]

58. That franchise should -

Subway the Corporation didn't have much of anything to do with the decision of this franchise owner.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. "Sandwich Artist." It's not enough that corporations don't pay,

they give you these ridiculous job titles that are obviously intended to poke fun at people who would still like to have a shred of dignity. How fucking cute.

[monmouth3]

5. A "career" and Subway...Hmmmmm

[xchrom]

8. 'sandwich artist' jumped out at me too. nt

[Enthusiast]

51. Starving artists would be more like it..............nt

[petronius]

20. I was struck by that as well - do they really call them that?

I think that's probably the most inane 'made-up' job name I've ever seen...

[LuvNewcastle]

33. They really do. I've heard Subway use the term before,

now that I think about it.

[elehhhhna]

24. Artists do art because they can't help themselves

not for 7.40 an hour gross













lmao

[gollygee]

4. Oh yeah, Christians never steal, cheat, or lie

And non-Christians are incapable of living otherwise? Right.

/sarcasm

[mick063]

38. Just send ten dollars and all your dream will come true.

Send ten more and you will receive a limited, autographed picture of Christ with a certificate of authenticity.

[Humanist_Activist]

6. Every place I ever worked at, from fast food to offices, had the Federal EEOC rules...

along with State anti-discrimination rules hanging on the wall somewhere at work, in the lounge, etc. In easy view of everyone who works there, or owns the place, did this dipshit fail at reading comprehension? This is a federal lawsuit waiting to happen, along with some stiff fines. Dumbass.

[Zorra]

7. I'm LGBT and will not eat any food that I know has been prepared by RW religious people.

I don't want to be poisoned because some deluded and deranged conservative wacko believes it is their god's will to kill LGBT people.

I also avoid using services if I know they are being provided by RW religious people, because I have reason to believe that they may not treat me fairly.

[awoke_in_2003]

49. It makes me happy when they are out in the open...

it makes it easier to avoid them.

[kestrel91316]

52. I don't blame you in the least. And I'm straight.

[Enthusiast]

53. I believe you have them pegged.

Some of them anyway.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. Does this mean no Jews?

Or no Catholics for that matter? Or no Muslims? Unless they are recruiting staff for a specifically religious oriented job - it is hard to see how they can do that legally. I suppose a religious organization such as a monastery could legally preferentially hire members of their organization. But for a private for profit business hiring people for a purely secular job - I can't see how they can do that legally.

[RC]

47. Naa, this is America.

There are only Christians here. Catholics, Muslims and other non-believing heathens are in foreign countries, where we are fighting terrorism, donchaknoe? (For the easily or purposely offended --> )

[upi402]

10. If true, boycotting Subway - discrimination lawsuit anyone?

At least it's out in the open. We all know it goes on in every field.

[tritsofme]

13. Do you live in this part of WV?

Or are you saying you are willing to boycott the entire chain over a single franchisee?

[TroglodyteScholar]

21. Why must you complicate things so?

Subway...bigoted...enemy!

Too much effort to acknowledge that the evil, monolithic corporation Subway isn't actually behind this.

[Politicalboi]

63. Unless Subway doesn't take action

And fire that manager, why not.

[rug]

11. David Waters didn't work out so well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/features/atheists081699.htm

[oldhippie]

12. Looks like a fine line there .....

They seem to be recruiting Christian employees, but there is nothing about turning down or not hiring other faiths, so I am not sure there is anything illegal going on there. Would anyone think it illegal to recruit those in your chosen affinity group if you don't discriminate against others in actual hiring? Or do you believe that merely trying to recruit from your favorite affinity group is discriminatory in itself? Or illegal in itself? If an Asian restaurant advertised for Asian servers, but also had other races and ethnic groups on staff, would that be illegal?

[gollygee]

14. Would you think it was OK to advertise for white employees

specifiying that you want someone honest, so you're looking for white people, and could white people please apply for the jobs you have available?

[oldhippie]

15. Not nice, certainly offensive, but ....

... do you think it is illegal?

[gollygee]

16. Uhm, yeah.

It's pretty clearly illegal.

[Kber]

22. Very - from the EEOC website...

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Religious Discrimination
Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.

Religious discrimination can also involve treating someone differently because that person is married to (or associated with) an individual of a particular religion or because of his or her connection with a religious organization or group.

Religious Discrimination & Work Situations
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

My comments: by giving favorable treatment to one group, Christians in this case, you are putting others at a disadvantage or discriminating against them because of their religious affiliation.

To your specific question, the law forbids making employment decisions based on race, age, religion, gender, or national origin.

Some but not all states also include sexual orientation as a protected class as well. This info above is from the federal not state government, though.

[oldhippie]

26. I see nothing there about recruiting or advertising ......

... only about results.

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

To your specific question, the law forbids making employment decisions based on race, age, religion, gender, or national origin.

Nothing about recruiting or advertising in sight. You can get a pool of applicants, including your chosen affinity group members, and then make your employment decision based on all the legal, proper, non-discriminatory qualifications.

Or do you just assume that every employer would discriminate favorably to his own group? Could you prove that?

Disclaimer for all the "make stuff up" crowd: I am not suggesting or advocating any such policy or behavior. I am asking questions and seeking opinions and discussion.

[gollygee]

31. OMG

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

Discriminatory Practices

II. What Discriminatory Practices Are Prohibited by These Laws? Under Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:

hiring and firing;
compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
job advertisements;
recruitment;
testing;
use of company facilities;
training and apprenticeship programs;
fringe benefits;
pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
other terms and conditions of employment.

[oldhippie]

43. OK, I see it there ......

Thanks.

[Kber]

37. It's a question of disparate impact

If an employers recruiting practices are shown to result in discrimination, I.e advertising in only white supremacist publications, for example, it is they will be judged on. In this case the employer didn't even try to play coy, however, stating his outright preference for hiring o e religious group over another.

You have to make a good faith effort to reach a wide and diverse pool of potential applicants. So, to follow our hypothetical situation further, you are certainly allowed to advertise in Aryan Nation, but if that's all you do, and don't also post in, say, the local star ledger, you can reasonably be accused of trying to limit your pool to whites only, which is illegal.

To openly state in your ad, or even in your cover letter to the editor, that you prefer whites is putting it on record that you will be making a hiring decision (also known as an employment decision ) at least partially based on race, which is illegal.

[TroglodyteScholar]

23. Yes. Most definitely illegal. Title VII of the Civil Rights act.

Advertising for a specific race, color, national origin, or sex of people necessarily discriminates against the excluded groups.

[oldhippie]

30. Can you provide a cite for that? .....

Seriously, I'd like to see it. Not trying to be argumentative (as is so often assumed), just educated.

Sec XXX of US Code, or some other cite?

[Kber]

39. I think GollyGee's post above has some good info

More good info here if you are interested in "becoming educated".

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/

[oldhippie]

44. Got it. Thanks! nt

nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

42. I made a pretty specific reference there

Link

[oldhippie]

46. Got it. Thanks. Title VII was pretty big. nt

nt

[Kber]

61. Ok - how'd you do that google animation thingee?

That's pretty cool!
On edit: I suppose I could have just googled how to do it, eh? Anyway, it made me chuckle.

[kestrel91316]

54. "Not trying to be argumentative"..........REALLY???

You sure could have fooled me.

And you are inexcusably ignorant of the law. It's not like it was just passed a year or two ago.

[oldhippie]

62. Well, you know what?

I have now just read thru and searched the entire Title VII, and I still don't see anything that specifically addresses the instant case. The words "advertise" and "recruit" do not even appear. There are some words addressing advertisements that indicate prohibitions and prohibited practices, but nothing about recruiting from groups. You can't say in an advertisement that you will not accept certain groups, as that would be discriminatory. But I don't see anything prohibiting inviting for participation, as long as it doesn't result in prohibited discrimination.

So, maybe since you are so much less ignorant of this ancient law, you can point out the relevant section that my word search algorithm cannot seem to find? Thanks.

[awoke_in_2003]

55. What part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...

don't you understand? You were given a cite- look it up for fuck's sake.

[oldhippie]

59. LOL! Most of it!

Many, many pages of legalese. I was hoping some DU expert would know the relevant section.

[awoke_in_2003]

60. Sorry for my snarkiness...

I really need a cigarette.

[Nay]

34. Yep, illegal as hell. nt

[Gormy Cuss]

17. It is illegal to use discriminatory language in job ads/recruitment, for one.

An investigation of that practice could uncover other discriminatory practices in hiring, retaining, or promoting staff.
This isn't an arcane law -- it's pretty basic information for business owners.

[elehhhhna]

25. yeah but their accountant recruiting letter said they wanted jews

j/k

[MANative]

18. A few years ago, I interviewed for a senior-level job at Subway's Corp HQ

in Milford CT. The process was arduous and very long (months) and I decided not to take the job for personal reasons (a lot too much travel for my liking). What I learned during that process, however, was that all franchisees must abide by a very strict contract, which I reviewed and studied. They are very explicit about non-discriminatory hiring practices and following both the spirit and letter of EEOC. I'll bet they'll be in a bit of hot water with the offices in Milford along with any other grief that - deservedly - comes their way. Franchise licenses have been pulled for a lot less; Hammond Group has a lot to lose if they don't clean up their act.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. True, I wouldn't blame Subway corporate for this, but the franchisee...

Corporate may drop him if he sticks to this strategy, they don't want to be opened up to a federal or state lawsuit, being possibly named as co-defendants with him.

[KG]

27. let's see how that works for him, when he finds his 'christian' employees as incompetent and

dishonest as any other demographic...

[valerief]

28. So they only want to hire people named Christian? That means only males! nt

[gollygee]

32. Too bad Christian Bale already has a job

Although I hear someone else is Batman now.

[valerief]

35. Yeah, Jason Bateman. nt

[factsarenotfair]

29. I wonder if that includes Mormons.

Is it just fundamentalist Christians?

[Moonwalk]

40. Or Catholics? I was wondering the same here...Does "Christian" include anyone who believes...

...in Jesus or just those who go to certain churches? Because where I am, there are a lot of are Latinos working at the Subway and I'd venture a guess that they're all Christian if that term includes Catholics.

[marble falls]

36. Sounds like Hammond Group, Inc is in need of some christian management.

[Moonwalk]

41. You know, if he'd just left out the "Christian" part, he could he gotten away with this--

--had his Christians (the ad being at all these churches) and yet not been in trouble with the ad being discriminatory. Just sayin'

[dballance]

45. I'm so sorry idiot, but you're a secular business, not Christian

Unless your business is religion then you're a secular business. While there may be the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster there is no Church of the Sandwich Artist I'm aware of. The Hammond Group is incorporated at the leisure of a secular government (mostly) that grants an artificial entity its existence within that secular government's laws. The corporation is a wholly (not holy) separate artificial entity from its human owners. That artificial entity cannot have its 1st Amendment rights to practice religion infringed upon as it's not a human that practices a religion. It can no more go to a place of worship or espouse a religious philosophy than my dog. At least my dog is an animate being.

This is the problem with the Hobby Lobby and other corporations that do not want to provide birth control. They want to take all the advantages of corporations, being artificial entities, that shield the natural humans from legal and financial liabilities on a personal basis and provide favorable tax policy. They just don't want to abide by the rest of the law that they don't agree with. The owners of the corporation are not, in any way, having their religious beliefs infringed upon. Quite the contrary. They are infringing upon the beliefs of their employees. The owners can practice their religion freely. They can abstain from birth control, and same-sex marriage all they want. They can donate all they wish to their church and they can even proselytize on their business premises since it's a private business.

What they should not and cannot be allowed to do is force their beliefs on other people.

[awoke_in_2003]

48. Just before Easter...

my company hid plastic easter eggs all around the building. Employees were allowed on egg. Most eggs had candy in them, some had tickets for things like $25 gift card, movie tickets, etc. Two of our uber Christian technicians were getting eggs, checking them, and putting them back if they had candy in them. Mister immoral atheist (me) ate his candy and lived with it.

[Enthusiast]

50. "If they truly wanted honest employees, they would hire atheists."

While this is true, no religious zealot would ever admit it. Fundamental dishonesty.

[winter is coming]

64. Fundamental dishonesty is believing that any particular subgroup is 100% honest or dishonest.

I've met liars of all stripes. It's as bigoted to assume religious people are inherently dishonest as it is to assume they're inherently honest.

[Enthusiast]

66. I must insist that religious zealots

are more dishonest than most groups. Just an observation.

[jmowreader]

56. This looks like an end-run around the EEOC

The law says ye may not discriminate on the basis of religion, so they will hire anyone who applies and meets all the nondiscriminatory qualifications.

But if the only people who know they have job openings are members of fundie churches, only fundies will apply...and my bet is, only white churches were told about these openings.

[kestrel91316]

57. I posted that article with comments on Subway's FB page. I also

shared it, with my comments, on my FB page. Send it viral, peeps!

[ThoughtCriminal]

65. We need people for dead-end, minimum-wage, no-benefit jobs

Where should we look?

I know!

[truebluegreen]

67. Sandwich artists?