Muslim Flight Attendant Refuses to Serve Alcohol- Do Republicans support her?

[J_J_]

A Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended by ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith.

She wants to do her job without serving alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith -- just as she was doing before her suspension, her lawyer said.

"What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely,"

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html

[yeoman6987]

1. If you can't do the job resign

Simple as that. Why should employees have to higher another person to do your job? Serve alcohol or get into another business.

[treestar]

14. +1

just like Kim Davis should.

[StopTheNeoCons]

51. +1 . just like Kim Davis should.

just like Kim Davis should.

[hifiguy]

54. All of this.

Do ALL of your job or hit the bricks.

[Hangingon]

60. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

177. Yep

[samsingh]

252. exactly. it takes a lot of gull and stupidity to accept a job and then say you can't

do the work.

[lpbk2713]

2. Did she not know the requirements of the job before she took it?

Shame on her. Go somewhere else.

[riderinthestorm]

3. She converted to Islam after she was hired nt

[lpbk2713]

4. I didn't read the link.

I was basing my reply on what I read in the OP.

Maybe she can get another assignment in the same company.

[riderinthestorm]

5. No problem!

She turned fundy pretty fast as she only converted two years ago.

I too believe that if you find yourself unable to do your job because of your religion it's time to quit.

[RKP5637]

9. Exactly!!! n/t

[Marrah_G]

38. I think that happens alot when people first join a faith

They are very gung ho and zealous. After a while people generally relax a bit. She needs to find a new job.

[Warpy]

44. Personal boundaries would also help

One thing the heavily religious need to get is that they're only responsible for their own actions, they have no control over anybody who doesn't live inside their skin.

Most of the resentment of the religious comes from what's perceived as their bullying of other people to conform to their own personal religious baggage.

Had this bird realized that other people have the right to choose to drink alcohol, there would have been no problem. Her faith says that she needs to abstain. That doesn't apply to anyone outside it.

[daleanime]

179. +1

[raccoon]

184. A loud AMEN to that.

Most of the resentment of the religious comes from what's perceived as their bullying of other people to conform to their own personal religious baggage.

[beac]

116. Just like KIm Davis, who only converted to her uber-fundie version of

Christianity four years ago.

[CBGLuthier]

146. I am still waiting for a pharmacist to convert to Christian Science

and tell everyone to pray about it.

[Ms. Toad]

165. Should the 18-20 year olds quit, too?

They can't serve alcohol either - so any airline that doesn't have a minimum hire age of 21 already has a means to accommodate people who can't serve alcohol.

[riderinthestorm]

180. I cant find any US airline that hires FAs under 21

Including ExpressJet where this woman works

[Ms. Toad]

193. Southwest hires at 18.

Southwest.

United Airlines - 19.

Last I checked, both are US airlines. Finding the basic information took me a single search last night, before I posted. Confirming it took two (one each for United and Southwest).

The point is that the law requires reasonable accommodations for religion. If airlines choose to hire individuals who are unable by law to sell alcohol, it is presumptively reasonable to accommodate employees who cannot serve alcohol for religious reasons.

There may be extenuating circumstances why an individual airline could not accommodate it - but since it is a routine practice that burden would be on the airline to prove. Since it offered the accommodation to her for three months (and only rescinded it when a co-worker complained), that would be a uphill battle. Co-worker complaints are not legally valid reasons to refuse to accommodate religion.

[MADem]

201. Both airlines you name have large planes with large flight crews. This airline doesn't.

They are small a/c. Many have just ONE fa. Some have just two.

If there's only ONE flight attendant on some flights, that means she can't do her job.

It is not a reasonable accommodation to put a flight attendant on a plane where the passengers are expecting booze, and she can't serve it "because religion." That'll go over like a lead balloon.

It's not a reasonable accommodation to put her only on flights with 2 FAs, and she doesn't have to do any beverage service "because religion." No wonder her peers are complaining--they are getting all the shitty, one FA flights with all the hard work, and when they fly with her, they're having to do their work and HERS too. Sucks.

[Ms. Toad]

204. It was a reasonable accommodation for about 3 months,

and was only stopped after a co-worker complained (in a clearly discriminatory complaint which complained about headdress and a foreign book). Co-worker complaints - particularly ones expressing religious, national origin, or ethnic bias - are not generally valid reasons for determining the accommodation is not reasonable.

After an uneventful (from all accounts I have seen) period of accommodation, responding to a complaint inextricably tied to bigotry by yanking the accommodation creates a mountain I would not want to scale as counsel for the airline.

[FrodosPet]

231. It was an UNREASONABLE accomodation from the start

She has no right to put a major part of her legitimate labor on others.

So do you support the right of cab drivers to refuse to carry passengers who either have alcohol in their possession, or who have a service dog? After all, the company can send another cab (unless it is a company that refuses to hire anyone but Muslims) (yes, there are some).

[Ms. Toad]

233. Reasonable accommodations are always individual assessments.

and they are based on legal analysis, not knee-jerk reactions by people who do not understand the law.

In this case, airlines (more broadly) already accommodate flight attendants who can't serve alcohol because they are underage. This particular airline accommodated it for this flight attendant for 3 months and only rescinded the accommodation when a bigoted complaint was filed.

Those factors weigh against it being an unreasonable accommodation. That isn't to say that the airline couldn't convince a court the accommodation was unreasonable because of their size and the number of puddle-jumping flights they run, but they will have an uphill battle.

As to a cab company refusing to hire anyone but Muslims, that is blatantly illegal - and anyone filing a complaint would win in a heartbeat. There are very few jobs (and cab driving is not one of them) where it is permissible to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Since people carrying alcohol isn't a protected class, presumably (absent laws specific to cab drivers*), a company or an independent cab driver could refuse to transport someone who has alcohol in their possession (or who has blue eyes, or is wearing fur, as other examples). If the cab driver worked for a company that did not have such a policy - it would probably be pretty easy to establish that accepting fares is an essential job function. Depending on the dispatch system & the number of cabs, it might or might not be a reasonable accommodation. If it could be handled without inconveniencing the customer (by not dispatching that particular cab driver in the first place - or by that driver forfeiting his/her place in the queue), there is at least an argument that the accommodation is reasonable. Probably not a winning one.

Because individuals with disabilities ARE a protected class, neither an independent cab driver or a company could refuse to transport the person and their dog. That makes it an even harder argument for the cab driver, since accommodating the service animal would need to be seamless - or the company risks a discrimination claim by the owner of the service animal. That makes it harder for there to be any reasonable accommodation for the driver's religion since failure to accommodate the service animal has legal consequences the company owner would likely have to bear.

* My legal experience does not extend to the specific regulations governing cab drivers - so if there are are additional requirements that prohibit cab companies from refusing service to people who are not part of a protected class, the analysis would follow the service animal analysis.

Do I support the law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion (or lack thereof)? Absolutely.

[riderinthestorm]

265. You haven't demonstrated that FAs of any age are prohibited from serving alcohol

The FAA itself says that alcohol service is up to each individual airline. They have no no rules about the service of alcohol at all on flights.

United is based out of IL which allows servers to serve alcohol at 18. Southwest is based out of Dallas and TX has the same 18 yr age requirement as IL. Delta is based in MN - age to serve is 19 but age to be a Delta FA is 21. ExpressJet is based out of Houston ... rinse repeat. You keep posting the general age requirements for employment at these airlines. FAs are different in virtually all cases but that still doesn't matter - their HQs are located in states that allow it anyway.

Let me repeat though, the FAA has no rules and regs on the serving of alcohol. None.

Furthermore, this woman asked for the accommodation on June 1. The first complaint was filed August 2. That's not three months. That's two. It doesn't say when the accommodation was implemented but clearly sometime in June. When the July schedule came out I'm sure it took the Senior FAs who got bumped back down to the "bad shifts, solo shifts" to accommodate this Muslimah, a couple weeks to figure out what's happening (Because nobody really works together at ExpressJet - even if they are on a shared flight one of them works 1st class, one in coach).

Then the complaint was filed one day after the new August Schedule came out - August 2. So in reality the accommodation lasted somewhere 4 - 8 weeks max. And we don't know if that proceeded smoothly. That's an assumption you're making that we have no way of knowing.

[Warren DeMontague]

247. agreed.

Frankly, I'm gobsmacked at the people falling all over themselves in this thread to "please find a way for this poor woman to not have to do the job they hired her to do" because heaven forfuckingfend she should have some conflict with what she thinks the invisible man in the sky wants as far as serving booze to other people.

All I can think of is this:

[riderinthestorm]

209. That's not for FAs though. FAs have to be 20

http://jumpseatnews.com/2013/2/united-hiring-flight-attendants

Here's an actual ad for a FA position that says the candidate must be 21

http://jobs.united.com/chicago-il/flight-attendant-mandarin-chinese-speaker/126C9CD84D6B4902BA0777E14288EE81/job/

So it's obviously not black and white.

I also checked Delta, Frontier and American Airlines fyi.

I did not check Southwest last night but their age limit of 20 doesn't surprise me since TX like IL allows 18 yr olds to serve alcohol under supervision and that's where SW is based.

United is similarly based out of IL where servers can serve alcohol at 18 yrs old so that would seem to be why they have a lower minimum age requirement than the others.

ExpressJet is also 21 yr old minimum fyi.

[Dorian Gray]

272. They can't

I could swear I served alcohol when I was waitressing in my late teens before I was 21.

[Ms. Toad]

164. The airline accommodated her,

and apparently it was working well, until another employee filed a complaint.

The complaint also alleged she wore a headdress and carried a book in a foreign language. Somehow I think the complaint was triggered by the fact that the religion involved was Islam than about whether she should be required to serve alcohol.

After all, flight attendants who are under 21 can't serve alcohol either - so it is a pretty common accommodation.

[FrodosPet]

232. This is incorrect

http://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/StateAndLocalLaws/1133835601.html

Thirty-seven (37) states and the District of Columbia permit adults age 18 or older to serve alcoholic beverages in on-premises establishments. Only three states require a server to be age 21 and one state permits persons age 17 to serve alcoholic beverages.

~ snip ~

[WinkyDink]

101. Even MORE reason for her to have known, I'd say.

[Betty Karlson]

174. Again: if a general becomes a pacifist while already attaining to that rank,

he should resign because his new-found belief inhibits his chosen profession and the other way around.

Under no circumstance would it be acceptable to refuse to do his duty and claim "religious freedom". He chose a job consistent with the beliefs he held at the time. If the beliefs change, consider a change of job.

Same case with a minister who loses faith: if you no longer believe in God, the pulpit is no longer the right place for you.

As for the flight attendant: to the best of my knowledge, the Islamic jurisprudence does not prohibit serving alcohol, it merely prohibits consumption of alcohol. When dealing with "unbelievers", the Shari'a consensus advises Muslims to "treat the wine as if it were vinegar": don't drink it yourself, but appreciate the value it has for the unbelievers.

The woman has replced wining with whining, if you ask me.

[J_J_]

6. This was accidentally linked by an Alaska state senator on a tweet

He was complaining about the treatment of Kim Davis and accidentally put this link.

So they support this woman's religious freedom to not do her job?

[Kablooie]

7. My Amish electrician does a fine job. He just can't fix anything that's electric.

And Rabbis should be entered into the pork rib eating contests.

Its like the one legged man, a unidexter, playing the part of Tarzan.

[belcffub]

292. I know your joking

but I have had Amish working for me doing electric

they also will use our electric tools... just do not own any

[Kablooie]

294. I didn't know that.

They are more reasonable than Kim Davis.

[RKP5637]

8. WTF - I'm fed up with this religious nonsense. You take a job and you do what it

requires, If you can't hack the job, it changes, whatever, you leave and find another.

Crap, I spent my career in corporate America. I had to do things/assignments that were not fun or difficult, but it was my job, and if I had kicked my heels up I would have been terminated for insubordination.

Several times I worked for corporations wherein huge changes were being made, geographical moves, etc. The CEO said do it or find another job, and we'll help you find another job if you want. It was a great company and I stayed.

I don't have the link, but I read once there are something like 1,600 religions in the world. What the crap is a company to do, accommodate everyone's religion.

Damn, this is pure nonsense.

[smirkymonkey]

10. Thank YOU!

I am sick to death of this religious nonsense. It has no place in a modern secular society. Stay home if you can't do your job properly. There are plenty of people who will.

[Tipperary]

12. Yes I SO agree with you!

[X_Digger]

15. Companies must provide reasonable accommodations, yes. (Emphasis on 'reasonable'.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1605.2

Section 701(j) makes it an unlawful employment practice under section 703(a)(1) for an employer to fail to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless the employer demonstrates that accommodation would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business.

[RKP5637]

20. Thanks for the info. and link!

[exboyfil]

28. Some issues with the law

It requires the employer to determine the sincerity of the belief - that should not be an employer's role.
If the coworkers object to being assigned extra duties due to the accommodation, then I think it becomes an undue hardship on its business. You can't use your beliefs to force the behavior of others.

[X_Digger]

40. What section of the text above makes you think employers must determine sincerity? n/t

[exboyfil]

48. I read a larger article on this law

from the Washington Post. A pretty good analysis.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/?postshare=3931441463098890

[X_Digger]

50. Err, you didn't read that quite right, I'm afraid.

The rule accepts the risk of insincere objections. Of course, when sincere religious objectors can get an exemption, others can ask for the same exemption even just for convenience rather than from religious belief. That’s not much of a problem for many exemption requests, since most people have no personal, self-interested reasons not to transport alcohol on their trucks, or raising an American flag on a flagpole. But for some accommodations, there is a risk of insincere claims, for instance when someone just wants Saturdays off so he can do fun weekend things. The law assumes that employers will be able to judge employees’ sincerity relatively accurately, and to the extent some insincere objections are granted, this won’t be too much of a problem. Again, the law might be wrong on this, but it’s the law.

Emphasis added.

I've worked with the EEOC on a religious accommodation case at a Fortune 100 company, I got all the nasty in's and out's papered all over my office for six weeks.

[exboyfil]

57. Thanks for the correction

On the reread I can see your point and you obviously know the situation much better than myself.

[PoliticAverse]

52. Good article covering the many aspects of the issue. n/t

[Skittles]

108. I don't find someone else having to do your job a "reasonable accomodation"

if you cannot serve alcohol GET A JOB WHERE ALCOHOL IS NOT SERVED

[X_Digger]

120. If you can't work on Friday nights, GET A JOB THAT DOESN'T WORK ON FRIDAY NIGHTS..

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the EEOC office when *that* complaint came in from an orthodox jewish person.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1605.2

(1) Section 701(j) makes it an unlawful employment practice under section 703(a)(1) for an employer to fail to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless the employer demonstrates that accommodation would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business.

(d) Alternatives for accommodating religious practices.
(1) Employees and prospective employees most frequently request an accommodation because their religious practices conflict with their work schedules. The following subsections are some means of accommodating the conflict between work schedules and religious practices which the Commission believes that employers and labor organizations should consider as part of the obligation to accommodate and which the Commission will consider in investigating a charge. These are not intended to be all-inclusive.

There are often other alternatives which would reasonably accommodate an individual's religious practices when they conflict with a work schedule. There are also employment practices besides work scheduling which may conflict with religious practices and cause an individual to request an accommodation. See, for example, the Commission's finding number (3) from its Hearings on Religious Discrimination, in appendix A to §§ 1605.2 and 1605.3. The principles expressed in these Guidelines apply as well to such requests for accommodation.

(i) Voluntary Substitutes and “Swaps”.
Reasonable accommodation without undue hardship is generally possible where a voluntary substitute with substantially similar qualifications is available. One means of substitution is the voluntary swap. In a number of cases, the securing of a substitute has been left entirely up to the individual seeking the accommodation. The Commission believes that the obligation to accommodate requires that employers and labor organizations facilitate the securing of a voluntary substitute with substantially similar qualifications. Some means of doing this which employers and labor organizations should consider are: to publicize policies regarding accommodation and voluntary substitution; to promote an atmosphere in which such substitutions are favorably regarded; to provide a central file, bulletin board or other means for matching voluntary substitutes with positions for which substitutes are needed.

(ii) Flexible Scheduling.
One means of providing reasonable accommodation for the religious practices of employees or prospective employees which employers and labor organizations should consider is the creation of a flexible work schedule for individuals requesting accommodation.

The following list is an example of areas in which flexibility might be introduced: flexible arrival and departure times; floating or optional holidays; flexible work breaks; use of lunch time in exchange for early departure; staggered work hours; and permitting an employee to make up time lost due to the observance of religious practices. 3

(iii) Lateral Transfer and Change of Job Assignments.
When an employee cannot be accommodated either as to his or her entire job or an assignment within the job, employers and labor organizations should consider whether or not it is possible to change the job assignment or give the employee a lateral transfer.

Seems pretty straightforward.

[Skittles]

122. yes, absolutely get a job where you can make your own hours if you cannot work Fridays

this complete bullshit of "accommodating" BY MAKING OTHERS DO YOUR JOB is RIDICULOUS

[X_Digger]

124. Typically what happens is a swap.. you do this, I do that..

Where you're getting this 'do mah job, I do nothing' schtick is beyond me.

[Skittles]

126. I do that a lot at work but if it can't be made, they have to do their job, END OF STORY

if this gal can be in a position where she CANNOT PERFORM THE DUTIES OF HER JOB, she needs to FIND ANOTHER JOB

[WillowTree]

170. GAL??!!! Really?

[Skittles]

172. Texas talk

[ProfessorGAC]

182. A Woman Can't Say Gal?

Really?

[MADem]

202. I always thought "gal" was the female equivalent of what used to be an exclusively male term, "guy."

Nowadays, "guy," like "dude," has lost gender specificity, but I don't think it is a put down.

It is a CASUAL word, but not mean or denigrating.

[Skittles]

235. thanks

it's commonly used in Texas - not considered offensive

[randys1]

229. Cant serve alcohol? NO problem, just have Coors as your officlal beer, surely nobody considers

that beer, right?

[Ms. Toad]

167. And since airlines generally hire 18-20 year olds,

an accommodation related to serving alcohol will create no more burden than the airlines already accept by hiring individuals who are prohibited by law from serving alcohol in many states.

[riderinthestorm]

181. Actually that doesnt seem true - Delta, United, American etc - min age is 21

In fact a full 50% of FAs have a college degree

[Ms. Toad]

194. United and Southwest hire at 19 and 18, respectively

for Flight Attendant positions. Links provided in my earlier post.

[riderinthestorm]

208. And a repeat of my other post in answer

http://jumpseatnews.com/2013/2/united-hiring-flight-attendants

Here's an actual ad for a FA position that says the candidate must be 21

http://jobs.united.com/chicago-il/flight-attendant-mandarin-chinese-speaker/126C9CD84D6B4902BA0777E14288EE81/job/

So it's obviously not black and white.

I also checked Delta, Frontier and American Airlines fyi.

I did not check Southwest last night but their age limit of 20 doesn't surprise me since TX like IL allows 18 yr olds to serve alcohol under supervision and that's where SW is based.

United is similarly based out of IL where servers can serve alcohol at 18 yrs old so that would seem to be why they have a lower minimum age requirement than the others.

ExpressJet is also 21 yr old minimum fyi.

[katsy]

31. ^^^^THIS

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[X_Digger]

11. A reasonable accommodation was made, and then revoked.

CRA II requires such an accommodation, if reasonable. Having another flight attendant handle the alcohol doesn't seem to be unreasonable to me.

If she'd refused to let the trolley down the aisles because of that ebil alcohol, then it would be akin to Davis in KY.

[riderinthestorm]

21. Sounds like her fellow worker doesn't appreciate the extra work

and filed a complaint.

Is that unreasonable of her co-worker(s)?



How far down the slippery slope does the company go? Say the in-flight sandwich is ham so then she won't serve that, her co-workers are shouldering more of her workload as her religious demands escalate.

Sounds as though she's growing more fundy in her beliefs the longer she's been a convert. There have been Muslim taxi drivers for example who won't even carry passengers who have alcohol in their luggage.

[X_Digger]

37. If she'd volunteered to make up the work in another way, why not?

It's like an orthodox jewish person not wanting to work on Shabbat, and switching shifts with other co-workers.

[riderinthestorm]

41. The article doesn't say that she did.

Her lawyer only says she wants the other flight attendants to do that part of the job - ie increasing their workload.

I don't know enough about being a flight attendant to know if there's other tasks she could do instead of drinks service. Obviously her fellow co-worker who filed the complaint didn't think so...

Edited to add that I've been a waitress before and if there was a fellow waitress who wouldn't serve alcohol because she was a fundy and instead wanted me to handle all her drink orders during a joint shift I'd file a complaint as well.

[X_Digger]

47. Now who's making assumptions?

Her lawyer only says she wants the other flight attendants to do that part of the job - ie increasing their workload.

Who says that a quid pro quo wasn't proposed?

The airline is the one who made the suggestion regarding swapping duties with another attendant. There's a ton of tasks that flight attendants do.

Companies make reasonable accommodations for religious employees all the time; this isn't rocket science to keep things equitable.

[riderinthestorm]

49. I'm basing my response on the article info

if you have any other info from another source you'd like to share I'm open to reading it.

Her fellow co-worker complained so now the company's attempt to accommodate this woman has failed or at least has hit a bump.

I haven't the foggiest idea what tasks could be swapped out. Are you a flight attendant? Personally as a former waitress, a co-worker who wouldn't serve alcohol thereby forcing me to serve their customers would have been hugely UN-reasonable, dramatically impacting my level of performance for my own customers and the company as a whole.

[X_Digger]

66. That would have been an undue hardship for the employer (a waitress).

Not every accommodation has to be made, only reasonable ones.

A waitress who refuses to serve alcohol could be swapped for a hostess, or offered a spot in the kitchen.

My sister was a flight attendant in the early 90's, there's a ton of stuff done behind the scenes on every flight (and a ton in between).

[riderinthestorm]

69. Now i am assuming that if ExpressJet had another open position

This woman would have it.

As for the FA/waitress comparison there's also a ton of stuff that goes down besides serving alcohol as a waitress but there's no way you could substitute another task in for that service for many reasons.

I know that specifically. A complaint would be filed if a co-worker refused to do that and i was made to do it. Obviously this woman's co-worker had a similar issue.

It will be interesting to see what happens in this case. If you've ever flown Qatar Airways or Kuwaiti Express or any airline based in an Islamic country its obvious injunctions @ serving booze by Muslim FA's isn't a universally held Islamic standard in the airline industry.

I predict she'll lose if it even comes to court. Chances are she gets a settlement with ExpressJet and they all part ways.

Peace!

[X_Digger]

71. Well, this complaint also included her having a 'book with foreign words' and a 'headdress'.

So I'm having a hard time giving the complainer the benefit of the doubt. Sounds rather prejudicial.

ExpressJet made a mistake by granting the accommodation then rescinding it only after another co-worker complained. That goes to show that the accommodation wasn't an undue burden on the airline.

It will indeed be interesting to see how this one pans out. You're more than likely right re the settlement.

[riderinthestorm]

76. Agreed that the co-worker sounds prejudiced

However, I wonder if the mention of the headscarf relates to a uniform issue....

As for "the company" granting the allowance, I'll go out on a limb and say "the company" didn't speak to the flight attendants or the AFA-CWA (the flight attendants union), before they blithely assumed the other FA's would cover for this woman.

Serving alcohol may possibly be the worst part of that kind of job - dealing with the complaints, the drunks that have to be cut off, the drunken assholes who grope the server, extra trips for refills etc - yeah, I'd guess her co-workers wouldn't be thrilled that she found a way to avoid that hassle altogether and now they had double the "fun". Obviously at least one of them objected.

The co-worker has a legitimate complaint imo even as she tainted it by including the headscarf and Arabic materials.

[X_Digger]

81. Well, accommodations don't have to be reasonable to other employees / unions.

They have to not be an undue hardship on the employer.

[riderinthestorm]

98. I'm thinking if the co-workers are filing complaints, it's a hardship for the company

they've tried to accommodate her and that didn't work.

The scheduling alone would be a nightmare. This isn't like she can't work Saturdays. She can't work any solo flight at any time which is 3/5ths of their flights! She'd have to always be scheduled with a FA who agrees to do this woman's job... What happens if agreeable FA comes down sick and they sub in a FA who won't do this woman's job for her? Then you have the same old conflict and I'd bet another complaint - again.

If they don't have any other openings, they can't simply put her somewhere else right now.

Besides there's LOTS of evidence with other Islamic country based airlines that Muslims are not prohibited from serving alcohol (or even religiously required to wear hijab as any Google image search will show with Qatar, Kuwait, UAE Airways and their FA uniforms etc).

Sorry, but I think she's a new zealous convert and a PITA.

But as we said, I'm sure this will get settled before it goes to court.

[X_Digger]

105. Employers don't get to decide how folks practice their religion. (Thankfully!)

"I was talking to my brother Joe, and a jew fella he works with has no problem working on Saturday, so why can't you?"

That would open up such a can of worms.

[riderinthestorm]

113. Actually they can. A Muslim employee can't lay down their prayer mat 5x/day

in the middle of the DMV for example - their employer can order them to pray in a back room, even if it's not a great situation.

An employee is hired to work, not engage in personal religious campaigns during work hours.

Typically proselytizing is forbidden in the workplace (I'm looking at the religions who emphasize proselytizing like Mormons, evangelicals, or Jehovah's Witnesses as part of the full practice of their faith).

Religiously inspired discrimination is typically forbidden - Orthodox Jewish men are not allowed to discriminate against women as second class citizens even as their religion dictates that. On their own private time they can refuse to sit next to a woman, acknowledge her or shake her hand. Not on work time.

Operating dangerous machinery while wearing loose religious garments or hair isn't permitted - niqab and welding come to mind.

I could come up with a million examples where employers absolutely can and do tell folks how they can practice their religion (or not) on the job.

As for an Orthodox Jew, well my physician friends told me they were told to suck.it.up or they'd never get hired for a residency or as a first time hire in a hospital. They expected and understood they'd be on call 24/7. Maybe as they gained seniority they could arrange holiday swaps but NONE of them expected the hospital or medical organizations to accommodate their religion during those early years.

[X_Digger]

117. Yes an apple is not an orange. Glad we agree. ;)

There is no edict in islam that says one must drop whatever they're doing and immediately start praying wherever they are. That's just silly. "Oh, I'm flying a plane, but it's prayer time. Here let me point the plane toward mecca.." No.

However, If you have a muslim employee and you refuse to allow them reasonable accommodation to pray, the EEOC will come knocking.

You seem to be hung up on what's reasonable and what isn't. It's not reasonable for an employer to violate safety standards in order to accommodate the religious practices of an employee.

I'm telling you what the law is, and what the law requires. You can argue that it shouldn't be that way, or that it should be X way, but.. it isn't.

[riderinthestorm]

123. Actually the salat (5x/day prayer) is one of the five pillars or Islam

In other words, one of the five MOST important articles of faith for Muslims. There's no sufficient excuse for the pious to skip a prayer.

It's funny doncha think that this Muslimah isn't arguing for her right to salat - just avoiding serving alcohol, a truly minor and secondary religious "requirement".

A truly pious Muslim would never take an airline job precisely because it would interfere with their most sacred religious obligation - prayer. The alcohol prohibition is laughable to real believers since they'd never allow themselves to even be in a situation where they had proximity to alcohol.

You appear to be hung up that this woman is credible in making a "reasonable" request.

The rest of us understand she's not asking for a reasonable accommodation.

She just doesn't want to do the heavy lift of the solo FA flights. She's huevon imo combined with a new converts zealotry.

[X_Digger]

128. And now we've circled back around to you attempting to validate who is and/or isn't a good muslim.

Not my job, not your job, and certainly not the job of an employer, much less a government investigator.

How a person chooses to express their religion (or lack thereof, in my case) is not up to employers.

I could claim that I need to wear a collander on my head because I'm a pastafarian, and it would be up to my employer to make the case that such an accommodation would be unreasonable. Not that my religion is invalid, or that other pastafarians don't wear collanders, or that I should instead be worrying about touching the noodly appendage.

*sigh* I see we're simply talking in circles. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

[riderinthestorm]

131. "Reasonable accommodation of her faith"

that's all.

You appear to back this woman's demands.

The rest of us see it for what it is - unreasonable. If the airline can place her as a gate agent or ground crew then fine. She appears to be on unpaid administrative leave because such jobs aren't available.

You and I agree this won't get to trial. ExpressJet will settle with her and she'll go on her way richer and more "pious" than ever, as it pertains to alcohol instead of the real pillars of her faith.

Ka-Ching!



Feel free to have the last word.

[X_Digger]

134. EEOC complaints typically receive administrative hearings. (More like arbitration than court.)

The company will explain why they think a particular accommodation is unreasonable or an undue hardship. The attendant will likely counter with the experience pre-other-employee-complaint. EEOC folks will attempt to find an accommodation that's acceptable to both parties. (Schedule swapping, lateral transfers, etc.)

What the airline can't say is, "we refuse to make any accommodation."

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

211. I don't think it's a reasonable accommodation due to the carts

If you notice the position of the flight attendant in relation to the cart, they are always situated with their bodies between the cart and the front of the plane (if they came from the front) or their bodies are located between the cart and the back of the plane (if they came from the back.)

Basically, it's virtually impossible for the flight attendant to get to the other side of the cart if a request is made for an alcoholic beverage who would normally be served by the other flight attendant. The flight attendant would have to move the entire cart with her, disrupting her own service, or the passenger(s) wanting the alcoholic beverages would have to wait.

On the one hand, the muslim flight attendant would never have to work 1 attendant flights, which gives her an unfair advantage since those generally suck.

On the other hand, she is not likely ever to get a first class assignment, since more alcohol is served there. (And if she thinks she should get rotations in first class, she's nuts.)

[MADem]

119. It is NOT like that. That is a small airline--some flights only have ONE FA.

Those flights are HARDER than the ones with two FAs.

Basically, she's getting out of having to do the shitty flights, because, all alone, she can't serve the booze.

Her fellow flight atttendants are stuck doing all the lousy flights, she's not taking her fair share of them.

Even a two FA fllight, if one person has to do all the drinks service, they are working twice as hard as they should on that flight. It's faster if two people do it, but if she has a moral objection, she's useless.

I think she needs to go to work as a gate agent. She can't handle the job as a FA. She is placing an unreasonable burden on her peers.

[X_Digger]

121. That is one possible accommodation, yes- a lateral transfer.

(iii) Lateral Transfer and Change of Job Assignments.
When an employee cannot be accommodated either as to his or her entire job or an assignment within the job, employers and labor organizations should consider whether or not it is possible to change the job assignment or give the employee a lateral transfer.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1605.2

[MADem]

127. She doesn't belong in the air with those demands.

Alcohol service is something every FA needs to be able to do.

Next thing you know, she'll be refusing to serve snacks or hand out food boxes because there might be a BLT in the box, or some pork rinds, or a ham sandwich.

If you really want to get into it, there are a shitload of things that some uber-observant Muslims will characterize as "hara'am"--and if it ain't one thing, it's another.

Gate agent is the way to go--let's hope no one wants to bring their pot bellied pig onboard! Of course, if you want to be technical, even DOGS--yes, sweet little puppies--are regarded as "unclean" by those who really get serious about this stuff. If someone is that twitchy about alcohol, they're likely anti-dog too...IF they know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to the faith, that is.

If she's paying interest on a credit card, that's hara'am. Technically. She should be dealing with Muslim banks only and paying admin fees, not interest. She is not supposed to touch any males, so if someone has a medical emergency, she would (if she is following her faith) be unable to help that person if he were a male.

I look askance at her claim, frankly. Unless she is flying on an all female, no drinking, no dogs or pigs allowed airline, she's got troubles. She can't do the doggone job, UNLESS she acts like most normal Muslims, and understands that Qu'ran is subject to INTERPRETATION, and people do live in the modern world.

http://imamshirazi.com/haram.html

[X_Digger]

129. You know, I'm not in a position to tell a person they're doing their religion wrong.

Luckily, neither is their employer or the government- thankfully.

[MADem]

132. Thing is, if a person can't do the job, they can't do the job.

Keeping them on the payroll is just dumb if they can't do the work.

When she was hired, she was qualified, and now she isn't because she refuses to do an essential element of the job, when she knows full well that some flights are single-flight-attendant gigs (those would be the HARD flights).

She needs to get thee to the gate, and start handing out boarding passes and picking up luggage and putting it on the belt.... and that's a shit job...everyone yelling at you...but no serving of alcohol is involved.

[X_Digger]

135. If that's the only accommodation that she and the airline can come to, sure.

But refusing to make or propose any accommodation isn't going to cut it, either.

[MADem]

140. She might try to claim that she can't handle bags because they "might" have booze in them.

Or maybe someone has some pork salami or cured bacon in their luggage!

To be a flight attendant, you have to be able to give emergency medical treatment to passengers.

That means TOUCHING men who aren't related to you.

This is a bigger problem for her than just the alcohol bit. The second someone has a medical emergency and she refuses to respond, the airline could be in a liability mess.


I'm wondering if she's not looking for a Go Away Payday...?

[X_Digger]

142. Again, I'm not the judge of which tenets of a person's religion they embrace.

I really don't think it's smart to start down that path, either as an employer or as the government.

[MADem]

145. Here's where my interest lies. I want to know that the FA on the aircraft in which I am flying

can DO THE JOB.

Beyond that, I don't care if they worship a Number 2 Pencil at High Noon.

If people say they can't do the job for whatever reason--religious or otherwise--I think they need to go.

It gets to the point that it's like this:


http://www.theonion.com/graphic/christian-science-pharmacist-refuses-to-fill-any-p-9645

[Ms. Toad]

169. United Airlines, as an example, hires flight attendants at age 19.

The minimum age (generally) is 18. In most states individuals that age aren't permitted to serve alcohol - so by choosing to hire flight attendants at an age lower than 21, airlines are already accommodating flight attendants who can't serve alcohol. That makes it inherently a reasonable accommodation.

[MADem]

171. No--that's not true. In many states, cashiers and servers CAN serve/sell alcohol if they are

"supervised" by someone of adult age. Here are a few examples;

Illinois (where United has a hub): https://www.illinois.gov/ilcc/about/Pages/FAQs-legal.aspx Age 18, you can serve alcohol.

California and TX, 18, Nebraska 19, Utah--21 but sometimes 16, depending : http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2014/02/is-it-legal-to-serve-alcohol-if-youre-under-21.html

So it's not as clear as you believe. I would not be at all surprised if FAA has a "server" regulation that allows underaged people of majority age (i.e. over 18) to serve booze in a supervised environment.

And United Airlines isn't a puddlejumper airline, either. They have large planes with large aircrews. If you have a FAA mandated minimum crew of five flight attendants, for example, you've got some slack there--put a "special" person in the galley heating meals, picking up trash, and responding to calls from pax.

This airline where the FAs are complaining that this woman's accommodations are unreasonable, though, is tiny--some planes only have ONE flight attendant on them, to do everything....and if this woman cannot perform all those duties she is USELESS on those flights. She's not "fully available" to scheduling, and the work-arounds get onerous. She basically never has to do the "worst" flights because she can't do the job. Even if she is on a plane with one other FA, that FA gets an unreasonable burden, having to do most of the work because she can't.

[Ms. Toad]

199. What's not true about "in most states"?

In Ohio it is not permitted - which is what prompted my thought in the first place - when you approach a check-out counter staffed by an 18 year old, they have to enlist the aid of someone 21 or older to scan the alcohol and press the enter/sale key. In convenience stores that means that either staff has to be 18 years old, or older, or they cannot work alone. Most airlines fly through Ohio - including Southwest where the minimum age for a flight attendant is 18, and (by two accounts) United with a minimum age of 19.

As for the FAA having special rules - I would find it surprising, since I have encountered both on-the-ground and in-air announcements about whether alcohol service was available, and to whom, based on the airport or airspace the plane was in.

As for the unreasonable burden, accommodations can be reasonable or not based on the size of a company - so that makes the airlines case stronger. But they accommodated her for three months until they received a complaint from a co-worker (generally the impact accommodations have on co-workers is not a valid basis to refuse to accommodate a characteristic for which accommodations are mandated (e.g. religion and disability) It will be pretty hard to walk back what worked well for 3 months,, but was rescinded only in the face of a complaint by a co-worker (not a valid basis to refuse accommodation) with a discriminatory motive (apparent from the face of the complaint).

[MADem]

200. Why are you comparing a major airline with a flight crew of 5 or more to a puddlejumper airline

where, sometimes, there is only ONE flight attendant?

The point you're missing is that the 21 year olds are there--many of them--in your scenario. In this woman's scenario, flight attendants sometimes fly ALONE. Those are the worst jobs--one FA, having to deal with all the passengers, stow all the bags, deal with all their issues, all by herself with no help--it is a LOT of work. She's not going to be able to enlist a passenger to help her, and if the plane is big enough for 2 FAs, then instead of each FA starting at either end and serving the plane quickly, ONE FA has to do it all while Miss Religious Exemption sits on her ass.

She can't do her job.

She needs to go--or get a job working for SA Airlines. Or take a gate agent gig.

It "worked" for 3 months because NO ONE COMPLAINED. Her PEERS are sick of doing her work. They complained because they're getting the shit end of the stick, from work assignments (if she can't do the single FA flights, they are going to get stuck with all of them, and have reduced opportunity to do the ones with two FAs) to division of labor.

A complaint by a co-worker that the employee isn't holding up the side is an ENTIRELY valid reason for addressing this issue--it's a JOB, not a charity. Good grief--if she can't do her damn job, she doesn't belong there.

If she's so fundy she can't touch a beer can, what will happen when she's expected to give CPR to a "strange man not a relative?" In fundamental Islam, touching such a person is hara'am. She needs to find a new imam, who will tell her, you're not drinking the shit, you don't need to worry about it. Hand over the beer can and move on.

[Ms. Toad]

205. They accommodated her for 3 months, without any issues.

They would have a much better case had they made that argument up front - not as a rationalization for why the accommodation was yanked after a bigoted complaint was filed (or had they terminated the accommodation on their own after trying it and reaching the conclusion that it was not feasible based on their size). Accommodations sometimes (often) require others to be inconvenienced, or tolerate work situations they would not necessarily choose to - but for the law. That is the nature of accommodations. The problem here will be sorting out the co-worker's bigotry from the significance of the accommodation's impact on his/her work

As for your final comment, since she made a request for religious accommodations, it would certainly be appropriate for the airline to identify the essential functions of the job (which it should have already done - since creating them retrospectively makes them suspect) and to give her an opportunity to confirm that she can perform those functions without an accommodation and/or request accommodations. What it can't do is exactly what you (and others in this thread) have done - speculate about other restrictions you believe she would feel compelled to follow, and terminate her based on your expectation about what her beliefs require of her.

[MADem]

206. How do you know it didn't take three months for the complaints to percolate through the system?

Listen to you!!

And just because her fellow FAs ate shit for three months, you're seriously trying to insist that because they did not complain 'soon enough' that they've lost any "right" to complain at all? Please!

You do realize that FAs don't work nine to five--because their job is difficult and stressful they work fewer hours than ordinary folk, by and large. If a flight attendant works eighty or ninety hours a MONTH, it might take some time before the associates of this individual realize they're putting in for certain flights at scheduling, and NOT GETTING THEM, even though they have seniority to hold them, because Ms. Special Can't Touch a Beer Can is getting those more senior, easier flights to accommodate her sudden aversion to touching a beer can; and these senior FAs, who have worked their way up the system, are having to do the single FA flights which entail much more work; and they never have an opportunity to balance their workload/schedule with difficult/easier flights, because this woman cannot effectively do her job.

Good grief. How would you like it if your workload was increased--without any compensating pay rise--because a co-worker couldn't do his or her job "because religion?"

She CANNOT do the job. She needs to go. They should offer her a gig as a gate agent, because she's just not cutting it in the air.

[riderinthestorm]

250. No, they accomodated her for two months max

She asked her supervisor to stop serving alcohol on June 1. The complaint about this was filed August 2 (these dates are in the article). That indicates to me that the first month's schedule was already out when she asked for her accommodation. The July 1 schedule came out and the senior FAs were probably confused but didn't rock the boat - It's one crazy month right? They're back working on solo FA flights when they've climbed the ladder and left that behind. When the August schedule came out the shit hit the fan. The FAs finally figured out how the newbie had scammed the system to avoid the hard shifts and the complaint was issued asap. We don't know if there weren't any issues - just because one complaint was filed doesn't mean other FAs didn't have a problem.

And you haven't given one shred of proof that any other airlines accomodate Muslim FAs who don't want to serve alcohol. Repeating it doesn't make it so. Can you name any airline that does this other than this single episode? Your repeated assertion that airlines must be doing it because they have under 21 yr old FAs doesn't hold water because they are in fact, allowed to serve. Demonstrably so.

In fact, all of the Muslim country based airlines have Muslim FAs who alcohol so there are literally thousands of Muslim FAs who don't have any special type of accommodation to serve alcohol.

[riderinthestorm]

183. Thats not true. Min age for United FAs is 21

http://jumpseatnews.com/2013/2/united-hiring-flight-attendants

[Ms. Toad]

195. Not according to two other websites

http://www.avjobs.com/careers-directory/united-airlines-flight-attendant-career-requirements.asp

http://www.careerflightpath.com/flight-attendant-requirements/

Both of which recite age 19 for United. I did not find a United site which mentions age.

[riderinthestorm]

207. The site I used is 21

http://jumpseatnews.com/2013/2/united-hiring-flight-attendants

Here's an actual ad for a FA position that says the candidate must be 21

http://jobs.united.com/chicago-il/flight-attendant-mandarin-chinese-speaker/126C9CD84D6B4902BA0777E14288EE81/job/

So it's obviously not black and white.

I also checked Delta, Frontier and American Airlines fyi.

I did not check Southwest last night but their age limit of 20 doesn't surprise me since TX like IL allows 18 yr olds to serve alcohol under supervision and that's where SW is based.

United is similarly based out of IL where servers can serve alcohol at 18 yrs old so that would seem to be why they have a lower minimum age requirement than the others.

ExpressJet is also 21 yr old minimum fyi.

[Ms. Toad]

212. That one is specific for a Mandarin Chinese speaker.

The age restriction may well be specific to that particular job.

One of the links I found indicated that airlines are free to set a minimum age, but that it could not be higher than 21.

As to where an airline is based, even if an airline is based out of a state where it is legal to serve alcohol, they fly out of airports in states where it is not. While they are on the ground, at a minimum, they have to comply with the state law (and All of the airlines mentioned so far fly out of Ohio). Most airlines serve alcohol in first class prior to take-off, so that alone would create the same need for accommodation for people who cannot serve alcohol.

My point is merely that inability to serve alcohol is accommodation that airlines already have to make for reasons other than religion - so it is presumptively a reasonable accommodation. That makes it harder to make the case that it is not a reasonable accommodation. The three-month period for this airline when accommodations were granted (uneventful by any accounts I have seen), with its termination the result of a bigoted complaint makes it even harder.

This is not, by the way, the same as what Kim Davis is doing. Issuing (or authorizing the issuance of) marriage licenses is an essential function of the office she holds (her job). She is not requesting accommodations so that function can be performed by the office without her participation. She is refusing to allow the office to carry out that essential function.

[riderinthestorm]

220. Nope. I checked the FAA regs and each airline makes up its own rules @ alcohol svc

some airlines actually will serve alcohol to 17 yr olds.

British Airways is the only airline so far that I've checked that allows 18 yr olds as flight attendants and I presume that's because the UK has no alcohol minimum wage at all.

The others are higher - you're links aren't specific to FAs but to the company as a whole and thus aren't accurate in regards to FAs.

So no, other airlines are NOT automatically making this accommodation. Leaping to that conclusion isn't supported by the info we have. In fact, Muslim airlines like Qatar Airways, Kuwait Airways, UAE Expresss etc all serve alcohol which means their Muslim FAs are handling it without any religious objections. In fact, there are many MORE Muslim FAs serving booze by orders of thousands than her.

JCMach1 downthread is a Muslim and correctly asks why this Muslimah isn't more concerned with the daily prayer requirement accommodation - a far more important pillar of Islam than alcohol. Why isn't she pushing for that?

We all know why. It's because she wants to avoid the hard work of solo flights and avoid the crappy drunks and all that hideousness on the other flights. Or she's tired of the job and wants the settlement payola.

And FWIW, she asked her supervisor about stopping serving alcohol on June 1. The complaint about this was filed August 2 (these dates are in the article). That indicates to me that the first month's schedule was already out when she asked for her accommodation. The July 1 schedule came out and the senior FAs were probably confused but didn't rock the boat - It's one crazy month right? They're back working on solo FA flights when they've climbed the ladder and left those days behind. When the August schedule came out the shit hit the fan. The FAs finally figured out how the newbie had scammed the system to avoid the hard shifts and the complaint was issued asap after.

The headscarf complaint probably relates to uniform infractions but I don't know that for sure. The reference to "foreign language books" is definitely bigoted and taints their complaint. That doesn't mean it's prima facie problematic - the shirking her work duties is real and possibly the uniform issue.

Flight staff are touchy about Islam and yes, Im guessing Muslim employees. No doubt. I see sensitivity training in their future.

[MADem]

210. I'll bet they'd hire a foreign language speaker at 19, but not a domestic flyer.

Once they're clear of USA enroute to a foreign country, that person can serve all the booze their passengers want.

If there are specific ads looking for 21 year olds, they are looking for domestic talent.

[Ms. Toad]

213. You're assuming the reason for the age is the need to serve alcohol.

I don't know why that specific job requires an age of 21, but the requirement that the applicant speak Mandarin Chinese indicates this is not a generic job description - so there may well be other requirements in the description (like age, for example) that are specific to this job. The two general statements I found about United for flight attendants indicated the age of hire was 19.

But even if United hires at 21, there are other airlines which hire at younger than 21 that fly out of airports where alcohol is served. That means that flight attendants who can't serve alcohol for legal reasons can be accommodated - which makes it a much harder case since it then comes down to whether there are special circumstances in this particular airline that warrant an exception - and you're countering a successful accommodation for 3 months until it responded to a bigoted complaint.

[MADem]

217. All airlines hire foreign language speakers if they have presence abroad.

Flying to Paris? There are French speakers on the plane--qualified and tested ones, not just ones who took French in HS. Flying to Madrid or Caracas? There are Spanish speakers on the plane. Enroute to Rio? There are Portuguese speakers on the plane. They hire these people so they can communicate with non-English speaking passengers. Often they ARE young, and some are better than others in terms of their ability to function as FAs, but they are all qualified/pass a test of language skill.

And you aren't processing what I am saying.


If you have five or seven FAs on a plane, that "waaah, I can't touch booze" whiner can sit her ass in the galley and spend the flight heating up dinners. Then she can pick up trash at the end of the service. There are enough OTHER people on the aircraft to do the job.

But this woman works on TINY AIRCRAFT where she would often be the ONLY FA. What--you think the airline should put a spare FA in the plane to hand out booze? Reduce the passenger load, pay an extra person, carry dead weight, because she can't touch a beer can?

I don't see why you're making a complex issue out of something that is simple, here. She can't do the job. She is not working for United, so just stow that lame argument-- she's working for shitty little Expressjets, with their teeny tiny planes. There is no "someone else" on most of those planes to do HER job. If SHE doesn't do the work, the work does NOT GET DONE.

And "successful accommodation?" Successful accommodation, my left foot!!!! It could EASILY take three months for the complaint to be acted upon by an airline. The schedules are made month by month. A FA could get screwed over one month, be shoved into shit flights they didn't ask for, think "damn that was just bad luck," and then get screwed over AGAIN the following month, start to realize that it's not bad luck, it's because "Ms. No Beer or Booze" is gumming up the rotation, always getting a slot on the easier, two-person flights (and making that other person do HER work), and at that point, make a complaint.

She can't do the job? She needs to leave. You don't hire a person to type for you who can't type. You don't hire a person to give a massage who refuses to touch a customer. By her quirky, personal decision--not one that is held across Islam by ANY stretch--she has made herself ineligible.

I think she's looking for a Go Away Payday. She's probably sick of the job. I say offer her baggage handling or gate agent, but get her OFF the planes if she can't do the work.

[kevinbgoode1]

162. Makes me wonder. . .what if it is Muslim prayer time

and she needs to block the aisle in order to spread out her prayer rug and ask the pilot if he is facing Mecca. . .

...or if it is "buckle your seat belt" time . . .


My take on this is what I am seeing is that there is an increasing number of people claiming that they cannot practice their religious "freedom" without demanding others make some kind of sacrifice - as if that sacrifice is some sort of holy symbol to their personally selected interpretation of Supreme Being.

When I was growing up, it was emphasized to all of us in my little area that we were told to take responsibility for our own religious choices - not to expect others to make any sacrifice for them.

[smirkymonkey]

53. She doesn't have to drink the alcohol, she just has to serve it.

I really don't see the problem. I think she's just being a pain in the ass. Especially since she is a recent convert. She's looking for attention and notoriety.

[Gormy Cuss]

67. Right, the law requires reasonable accommodation.

In this case, letting her pass off alcohol orders to another flight attendant would be reasonable, just as it would be considered a reasonable accommodation for Kim Davis to personally refuse to issue marriage licenses so long as others in the clerk's office were available to issue them.

[X_Digger]

75. Agreed. n/t

[pnwmom]

92. Would the other flight attendant think it was reasonable to have to do more work than this woman?

And besides, when you watch the video, someone with the airline says that the planes are small enough that sometimes there is only one flight attendant -- and the pilot isn't going to serve drinks.

[Gormy Cuss]

143. Again, the other flight attendant isn't the person who determines reasonable accommodation

The other flight attendant can argue with management for greater compensation because of the shift in duties or management can decide to off load one of the 2nd FA's duties onto the Muslim one.

When there is only one FA on the flight, management can choose to make it an alcohol-free flight or not assign the Muslim attendant to such flights even if that means she gets fewer flights.

[pnwmom]

147. It would NOT be a "reasonable" accommodation if management were suddenly

to start declaring alcohol free flights.

Can you imagine the uproar among passengers?

There is no way that would consider that a reasonable accommodation.

You also don't seem to understand that it often isn't known how full flights will be till just before take-off, and that flights are assigned by SENIORITY.

[Gormy Cuss]

150. You don't seem to understand that reasonable accommodation is the law. n/t

[pnwmom]

152. I certainly do. But the law doesn't define "reasonable" -- that will be left to people.

And no reasonable person would decide a reasonable accommodation could include declaring alcohol-free flights or upending the union-negotiated seniority system.

[Gormy Cuss]

268. I trust that you understand the burden is on the employer

to demonstrate that there is no reasonable accommodation, right?

[riderinthestorm]

148. An alcohol free flight?! LOL!! Booze is a critical $$ maker

for any industry serving the public.

I guarantee you ExpressJet and most other airlines consider the booze markup on flights to be a significant revenue generator.

She won't be scheduled on any flights if she won't serve or she can't be scheduled with a FA wiling to accommodate her.

I'm willing to bet big money the airline has a significant revenue source with on-flight alcohol sales.

Big money!

Don't forget this fleet is already 3/5ths solo FA flights. Scheduling her is a nightmare.

[Gormy Cuss]

151. Then they won't make that choice.

That does not mean they can not make reasonable accommodation. Reasonable doesn't mean they must tie everything in pretzel shapes. It simply requires that they look for ways to accommodate rather than dismissing her limitation out of hand.

[riderinthestorm]

154. This Muslimah wants others to do her job

This is her version of a "reasonable " accommodation.

They didn't dismiss her accommodation out of hand. They tried a new model that failed.

Clearly they don't have another position for her at the moment since she's been placed on administrative leave.

Her "limitation " is also highly subjective and unsubstantiated by other Islamic airline serving standards.

[Gormy Cuss]

173. Then the court will rule against her. n/t

[pnwmom]

168. There isn't any way to do this without tying their scheduling system into pretzel shapes.

They already tried to accommodate her and it didn't work. There is no reasonable accommodation that CAN be made and the law doesn't require them to make unreasonable accommodations.

Here's one of several posts that explains why such an accommodation won't work:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7146094

[Warren DeMontague]

176. people want to fall all over themselves to make sure that some fundies have their fee fees protected

it's pretty friggin' simple, from where I sit; believe in whatever sort of convoluted mystical whoozit you want, but if the convoluted mystical whoozit interferes with your ability to perform your job as the job description entails - if that's a pharmacist, that means filling birth control scrips, if you're a flight attendant, that means attending the flight as the airline expects (in this case, including serving drinks to paying passengers over 21) if you're a cab driver you drive people where they want even if they have a closed bottle of liquor in their luggage, and if you're the county marriage clerk that means issuing marriage licenses to citizens who qualify for them --- then find a different fucking job. Period. Full stop.

[Arugula Latte]

163. "management can choose to make it an alcohol-free flight." ... Oh, fuck that.

Last edited Mon Sep 7, 2015, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

This is not Abrahamic Air or Islam Blue. Why should they stop serving alcohol because of the silly beliefs of one of their workers who should quit if she can't fulfill her duties. Why should everybody else have to suffer because of her ridiculous demands? What if she's the only FA?

"God" I'm sick of religion being kowtowed to.

[dflprincess]

161. That might work in First Class

but back in steerage when they bring the trolley down the aisle the flight attendants work as a team serving two rows at a time. What happens when the particular alcohol the passenger wants is on the side of the cart the Muslim FA is? Will she even had it to her team mate so she can serve it? And, if passenger is in the row the non-serving FA is supposed to work on does the passenger have to wait while the cart gets rearranged so the other FA can get to them?

[TuxedoKat]

196. Only on much larger aircraft

where more than one F/A is required in first class. On smaller jets, where only three F/As are required two work in coach and one in first class. The flight attendants bid on which position they want to work on the aircraft based on seniority (their schedules are also bid on based on seniority). So if the F/A working in first class refused to serve alcohol when it was requested a F/A from coach would have to stop helping his/her coworker and go up and work in first class.

[Puglover]

289. Having worked 30 years for NWA I can tell you we

BID positions on the a/c according to seniority. Some love working FC or BC and some hate it. I can guarantee every person in this thread, that if someone BID to work in FC and then pulled the "my religion forbids me to serve alcohol" card so someone from the back has to come up and do my job the plane would have never left the gate.

A supervisor would have been called (either by the Capt. or another FA) and the FA removed not only from the trip (immediately) and probably the job.

The world is completely insane. Sheesh.

[riderinthestorm]

295. Thank you. nt

[TuxedoKat]

296. I agree

Former F/A here too. It would be ludicrous to expect on a three F/A aircraft for one F/A from coach to leave the beverage service to serve alcohol in for the F/A working in first class. I was saying maybe it could work on a larger A/C where more than one F/A is assigned to first class. But as you say due to bidding for lines and positions on aircraft I don't know how an airline could reasonably accommodate this without other employees complaining.

[Puglover]

299. Granted we at NWA were fiesty

however I can just imagine the scene on a whale while bidding and briefing. Along with a nervous gate agent wanting to board. LOL. It would have been a brawl.

[Warren DeMontague]

175. so it would be reasonable if she was a bartender?

she could just come in to work and sit there, huh?

[LuvNewcastle]

185. I think I've encountered a few Muslim

bartenders in the past. There are some who you can't get a drink from no matter how hard you try.

[Gormy Cuss]

186. Does that sound reasonable? Being a bartender is intrinsicly about serving liquor.

Being a flight attendant is allegedly a job about safety first and about hosting second, isn't it? And serving alcohol is only one task of many in that latter category. IDK how the court will decide but if serving booze is seen as a minor task, she could prevail.


"Reasonable accommodation" standards were a driving force in making workplaces more accessible for persons with disabilities as part of the ADA. Prior to that most employers would just avoid hiring people. Now they need to demonstrate that there can't be accommodate for the guide dogs, adaptive devices, etc.

[Warren DeMontague]

216. there's not an infinite amount of staff on airplanes, nor is there generally a ton of room to move

additional people up and down those aisles.

It's a part of the job, it's a part of the job description, I stand by my point that if her religion prevents her from doing her job, she should find a different job.

A religious belief isn't a disability, as much as some of them may seem like it to the more skeptical-minded among us, at times.

Same goes for pharmacists who refuse to fill BC prescriptions, cab drivers who refuse to carry passengers to the liquor store, or county clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses.

[Gormy Cuss]

225. Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964

requires that employers make reasonable accommodations. Allegedly her employer agreed to accommodate her refusal to serve alcohol and now must prove that such an accommodation is unreasonable.

EEOC guidance on this
http://www.eeoc.com/guidance/discrimination/religious-discrimination/

[Warren DeMontague]

226. I would think reasonable accomodation would mean if you need to wear a yarmulke or hajib, you can.

If you need Yom Kippur off instead of Xmas, etc.

From the EEOC:

An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests.

It all boils down to that word, "reasonable", I guess. My personal, subjective opinion is that if someone is hired to do a fucking job and they are being paid to do a fucking job, whatever the description and duties of that job are, if their religion prevents them from fully and adequately performing ALL the description and duties of that job, they're not DOING THE JOB and so they ought to FIND ANOTHER JOB.



That's my considered legal opinion on the matter.

[Gormy Cuss]

267. Well yes, it does boil down to what is considered 'reasonable'

and since her employer allegedly did agree to accommodate her then reneged when another flight attendant objected my considered non-legal opinion is that it's up to the court to decide on the merits of her case.

I do find it amusing that so many DUers are up in arms for the right to be served drinks while flying.

[Warren DeMontague]

269. Is it better to let fundamentalists make our personal decisions for us?

Jesus.

I don't even drink, but come on. Sure, a planeload of people should defer to this woman's religious sensibilities.

And don't pretend the precedent doesn't apply to other things, like the pharmacist who says Jesus prohibits him from filling the birth control prescriptions of the woman who doesn't have a wedding ring.

For whatever reason, a few DUers have decided that this particular piece of fundamentalist godbaggery is something noble, and to be defended. Can't figure out why, but there it is.

[Gormy Cuss]

273. Because it's the law?

I'm amazed at how some here seem to think an optional service on an airplane is morally equivalent to denying health care to women or denying marriage licenses.

[Gormy Cuss]

275. That same logic was used by some after the ADA became law.

I'm not old enough to remember what was said after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed but I'm betting there were similar objections.

[TipTok]

74. Why should another worker have to pick up both of their jobs....?

Just because the voices in the one woman's head suddenly say 'Alcohol bad!'

The co-worker was completely justified in lodging a complaint...

[X_Digger]

78. Because the law says so. Employers are obligated to make reasonable accommodation.

Maybe that meant trading drinks trolly duty for another task with the other attendants.

[TipTok]

85. The law says reasonable...

Doesn't sound very reasonable to me but I don't think she should be accommodated at all...

[X_Digger]

86. *shrug* Take it up with the EEOC. n/t

[WinkyDink]

103. Maybe the other employees would not find this so "reasonable." Serving booze can get tetchy.

[X_Digger]

106. Reasonable is in the eye of the employer, not other employees. But yes, 'tetchy' applies. n/t

[pnwmom]

115. "Reasonable." But from the descriptions here of people who know

the duties of flight attendants, it isn't a reasonable accommodation. It's for a very difficult if not impossible to manage accommodation, given the fact that there might not even be another flight attendant in that section.

I think the airline showed good faith in trying to accommodate and then realized, over the two months, how unreasonable an accommodation that would be.

[X_Digger]

118. It seems the airline found it reasonable, but revoked it based on other employee criticism.

Which is probably going to help the flight attendant.

In any case, the EEOC will explore alternatives with both the attendant and the airline.

[Warren DeMontague]

230. well, I think she should find another job.

Or else do the deep personal work that comes with reconciling rigid belief systems with living in a world where not everyone obeys the rules of your invisible friend in the sky.

[X_Digger]

234. Until the law is changed or repealed, reasonable accommodations must be made.

We can all wish, huff, shout, and stamp our feet, but the law's the law.

[Warren DeMontague]

236. It all depends on what's reasonable.

Becuause while some people think that there is such a thing as a "real" religion, the fact is anything can be a deeply held religious belief. If courts are gonna start saying that people who are hired to perform certain tasks (known in the colloquial parlance as "a job&quot dont actually have to do those tasks if they conflict with their deeply held religious belief, and in fact can basically make up whatever fucking rules they want because it is their deeply held religious belief, that's GREAT!

My religion says that my job has to pay me to do nothing but argue with people on the internet. It also says that anyone speaking to me on the internet is recieving divinely inspired counseling, and as such hourly fees (tax exempt, of course) apply.

please PM me your address so I can send you the invoice for today's spiritual guidance.

[X_Digger]

237. See my previous comment re huff, stamp, and shout. It seems to have eluded you. n/t

[X_Digger]

243. I think employers have to follow Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964).

Anything short of repealing the law (or section 701(j) ) is stamping feet.

Feel free to continue. It's not getting anything done, but it might amuse someone.

[X_Digger]

245. Had anyone (other than you) proposed that, then we'd have a chat.

Feel free to throw up more straw men and have fun punching them down.

[X_Digger]

248. That's one reductio ad absurdum accommodation that someone here mentioned, yes.

If you thought they were serious, I'd have to question your reading comprehension.

Or they could not schedule this attendant on single attendant flights, much like other employers do for orthodox jewish folks on Shabbat.

[Warren DeMontague]

249. So pharmacist refuses to fill BC prescription, cab driver ditches lesbian couple, elected official

refuses to issue marriage licenses to LGBT couples..

you're okay with those, too? I mean, filling BC prescriptions, driving lesbian couples, and issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples are probably just as much a small section of those peoples' duties as taking alcoholic drink orders is for a flight attendant.

Flexible scheduling is not the same thing as not performing the duties when you're on the clock.

Gotta protect the right of people to COMPLETELY FUCKING REFUSE TO DO THEIR JOBS because God, huh? And the EEOC.

Yay.

[X_Digger]

251. Keep your fingers out of my mouth. My words come out just fine without help.

Besides, I don't know where they've been.

Accommodating religious beliefs is sometimes as simple as scheduling, at other times it requires having a space set aside (and a break in work) for Muslims to pray. Sometimes it's as simple as asking another staff member to handle certain requests in exchange for other duties. Sometimes it means a lateral transfer for an employee.

It's not rocket science, employers have been doing this since 1972.

Or we could all run around with our hair on fire expounding on ever more silly what-if scenarios.

[Warren DeMontague]

254. And sometimes those requests seriously fuck up the necessary delivery of services.

Like the pharmacist who refuses to fill the birth control prescription to the woman not in a "Christ-Centric" marriage, who either has to drive 50 miles to another pharmacy or can't get the pills at all.

Which has absolutely happened.

These aren't "what-if" scenarios; this country is full of would-be theocretins who are busy making their invisible sky friend everybody else's problem.

[X_Digger]

255. And sometimes the employers make the case to the EEOC and prevail as an undue hardship.

I understand this whole thing is probably new to you, but seriously.. since 1972.

[Warren DeMontague]

256. Yes I know how totally unreasonable to expect, say, cabdrivers not to abandon a lesbian couple

on the side of the freeway.

How insane to think that some woman getting her birth control is more important than Jesus's need to ensure that no non procreative fornication is enabled by the Winnemucca Walgreens.

PLEASE BE UNDERSTANDING OF TEH DEEEPLY HERLD FRELIGIERS BERLERFS

[X_Digger]

263. Finished with the wharrgarble, yet? If not, please proceed.

When you run out of energy, go check with the EEOC and see how they handle things here in the real world.

[Warren DeMontague]

270. not gonna answer, huh.

not terribly surprising.

Here's your real world, mac:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/07/lesbian_couple_sues_broadway_c.html

https://www.thisispersonal.org/pharmacists-can-just-say-no-filling-your-prescription-birth-control

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,644153,00.html

http://www.nwlc.org/resource/pharmacy-refusals-101

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501727.html

[X_Digger]

278. *yawn*

1. Not an employer accommodation case.

2. 3., & 4. If the pharmacist is the owner, they can choose not to do whatever they like, absent discrimination because of a protected class. Again, nothing to do with a request for religious accommodation.

5. Same as 1.

Perhaps you'd like to stay on the topic of an employee requesting religious accommodation from their employer, and not hare off onto another subject?

[Warren DeMontague]

280. So pharmacists and cab drivers aren't regulated and licensed by the state?

Seems to me you're incorrect on 2,3, and 4, at least in some states.

The subject I'm on, here, is whether it's right to contort oneself into knots to defend someone's 'right' to not do a big chunk of their job- in the case of the cab driver, taking people from point A to point B, in the case of a pharmacist, filling legally valid medication prescriptions.

I get that you don't want to talk about it, because it sure seems to me that you consider it EXTREMELY important that this woman be able to blow off a giant chunk of her job and still get paid, because God.

But I bet the Airline wins this one, anyway.

[X_Digger]

281. When you start a post with "So..", I know some strawman bullshit is coming.

If you'd like to address the words that actually have come out of my mouth (hands?) instead of the words you'd like for me to have said, please do.

That's why your cases are haring out into left field.

Typically religious accommodations include swapping.. shifts, duties, or entire jobs. So Saul works Sunday afternoon instead of Friday night because of Shabbat.

Emeka works 20 minutes past his scheduled shift time to make up for the 20 minutes he spent praying.

Melissa swaps duties with Gretchen so that Gretchen can avoid doing something that she has a religious objection to.

If you'd like to come back to religious accommodation cases, feel free.

Or you could hare around on fire some more, talking about something else.

[X_Digger]

283. "So, okay- you don't..." --- you're doing it again. Stop that.

Care to stick with things I've actually said?

Is this a constitutional inability to address what I've actually written, and instead pile up lovely straw men to beat down?

But to play into your scenario, here's one accommodation that comes to mind..

"Sir, you asked for alcohol, please wait until my colleague-- who's standing five feet in front of me-- gets to you as we roll this cart down the aisle. Jane, the gentleman in 2c would like a scotch."

In exchange, Charee does the post-flight checklist and/or the cleanup that Jane hates doing.

It's been going on since 1972.

[Warren DeMontague]

284. Just because I use the word "so" doesn't mean I'm putting words in your mouth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7151025

If you thought they were serious, I'd have to question your reading comprehension. - those were your EXACT words. On the topic of whether expressjet has single attendant flights.

And this is the sentence of mine you're "wharrrrabling" about:

So, okay- you don't believe that expressjet has single flight attendant flights

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant when you said, to me, "if you thought they were serious"?

Fine, you DO believe that expressjet has single flight attendant flights, then. Which only emphasizes my point, further.

And you haven't answered my other questions. What if scotch gentleman is half finished? Can Charee still do the "cleanup"? What if scotch gentleman changes his mind midway through scotch disposal and wants it back? Isn't that "serving"? Isn't passing the order for the scotch to the other FA a form of taking a scotch order?

Also, if the other flight attendants were so fucking ecstatic about this "accomodation" that apparently worked for a whole 3 weeks or so, why did they complain about it?

[X_Digger]

285. "So apparently they're gonna be defacto no booze flights"...

That's your contention, not mine. I certainly hope you weren't serious. Perhaps the airline can schedule this attendant for only those flights with another attendant.

As to the rest of your questions-- I'm not a muslim, I'm not a muslim of X sect, I'm not a muslim of the attendant's sect, I'm not a muslim having experienced and embraced the particular tenets of this attendant.

I don't tell you that you're doing atheism wrong if you don't agree with X,Y, or Z; I don't expect you to tell a muslim how they're doing their faith wrong.

Is that so hard a concept to grasp? That people value different parts of their respective faiths (or lack thereof) in different ways?

I suppose so.. it's much easier to just sit back and..



How about we deal with the information we're given and stop hypothesizing situations that haven't been brought up. Mm'kay?

[Warren DeMontague]

287. The 'information we've been given' contains data points like "her coworkers complained"

So the picture you painted of the egalitarian, easygoing airplane aisle where she helpfully volunteered to pick up X amount of slack because she was avoiding Y amount of work, doesn't ring true.

Furthermore, if you did want to tell me how I'm "doing Atheism wrong", I wouldn't really care, but its not really relevant to the discussion, and I thought that was one of your pet peeves, you know, hare this, hare that.. "Doing Atheism wrong" is sort of meaningless, and furthermore, it is the nature of "deeply held beliefs", such as they are, that they are entirely subjective and dependent solely upon the interpretation of the person "doing" the religion or belief, so again kind of a meaningless thing to talk about.

Did I suggest that she was "doing Islam wrong"? No, I did not. I don't know, thats why I was asking the questions, which seem to me to be entirely obvious hypotheticals if we REALLY want to examine how "reasonable" it is for a flight attendant to refuse to serve alcohol on a small commuter airplane that has it. It seems an arbitrary distinction to me to say "I can't hand you the drink but I can hand the drink to someone else to hand to you." "I can't take your drink order but I can listen to it and repeat it to someone else"..."I can handle a fully emptied booze cup, but not one half full", etc. But seeing as I find the entire thing ludicrous, I can't say one is more ludicrous than the other. (To me, many of these so-called "time honored religious traditions" read like nothing so much as mass cases of OCD- "god wants you to touch the doorknob 5 times, but NOT 6" ...etc)

If I get hired to do a job, say--- underwater welder--- however, and I come up with some excuse involving my "deeply held religious beliefs" that precludes me from going underwater, or holding a blowtorch, but i still want you to pay me to underwater weld, i can think of circumstances where it might be appropriate to ask if I am doing underwater welding wrong.

[X_Digger]

288. The complaint also complained about a 'book with foreign words'. Sounds a bit prejudicial to me.

Yeah, you were exploring what-ifs based on your expectation of her implementation of her religion. Rather pointless and silly.

Perhaps you also missed the other common accommodation that is a lateral transfer.

I think you're intentionally being obtuse. Why, I can't fathom.

[Warren DeMontague]

298. Maybe. I guess the court will decide.

Beyond that, we are at an impasse, Mr. Wabbit.

[MADem]

79. It is most certainly UNREASONABLE if her co-workers say it is. And they have.

She can't work puddlejumper flights where there is only ONE FA--that means the non-Muslims will always get assigned those shitty, labor intensive flights, while she avoids that duty because 'Waaah, religion!'

If she's assigned to a flight where there are two FAs, then the FA has to do ALL the drinks service in the cabin, in the event that someone orders booze instead of a coke. This slows down the service and that is a real problem on short flights.

Basically, the accommodation is unreasonable because a big chunk of "her" job has to be done by someone else. The reason this accommodation was revoked is because her co-workers said "We're sick of carrying her ass."

She needs to either get with the program, and understand that serving is not consuming, or she needs to take a gate agent gig or quit--or get fired.

She is being unreasonable. It's not like she's working 747s and can hang in the galley reheating meals, she's working for a crappy little regional carrier that sometimes only has one FA on the plane. She's causing a mess for the other FAs and the schedulers. She needs to grow up or go.


I am all for "reasonable accommodation" of religious differences, FWIW. But if someone can't do the job, they can't do the job. No one is going to hire Arnold Schwartzenneger to teach physics, and no one is going to hire Stephen Hawking as a gym trainer. Some people, for whatever reasons, are not qualified to do the job because either they CAN'T or WON'T do the job. And if they can't or won't, there's someone else who can and will. They need to find work that is compatible with their life choices.

This is not the same as discrimination on the basis of religion, either. Those fundy places that take government money and refuse to hire gays, for example, they can shove it. Either they take the qualified gay applicants or they kiss the gub-mint money goodbye.

[X_Digger]

84. Unreasonable is in the eye of the employer, not other workers.

Other workers could be pissed that Saul doesn't ever have to work a Saturday shift. It's unfair, they cry! Waah! However, Saul works the same 40 hours as everyone else, just swapping shifts with co-workers to make sure he's not working the Shabbat.

From the employer's perspective, Saul's covering his hours. Not an unreasonable accommodation.

In this case, the attendant could be doing *other* work-- you don't think that handing our drinks is the majority of what flight attendants do, do you?

I am all for "reasonable accommodation" of religious differences, FWIW. But if someone can't do the job, they can't do the job. No one is going to hire Arnold Schwartzenneger to teach physics, and no one is going to hire Stephen Hawking as a gym trainer. Some people, for whatever reasons, are not qualified to do the job because either they CAN'T or WON'T do the job. And if they can't or won't, there's someone else who can and will. They need to find work that is compatible with their life choices.

Funny, you don't sound like someone who's all for 'reasonable accommodation'. I say "G'bye...! Yer fired!" doesn't seem to fit with someone who's for a reasonable accommodation.

And nice dig at the differently abled.

[MADem]

87. No--employEES. If her peers say "Our workload is increased without compensation because she

cannot do her job" then the employER has to take action.

If she is "excused" from working the single FA flights (more work, harder work) that everyone else has to work to get the same paycheck, then she is getting an advantage that the other workers aren't getting.

Her problem is that her PEERS are complaining. They are saying the "accommodation" is placing an UNreasonable burden on them.

She needs to go. I think the company should offer her a job as a gate agent. Of course, then she'll whine about having to give "strange men" tickets, or something.

I don't think she wants this job. If she did, she'd do it.

This is not about "digging" at the differently abled, but real slick of you to miss the damn point.

The point is this: Some jobs have very precise qualifications. She is unable to fulfill the requirements of her job without unduly burdening her peers. No one is telling her to drink the beer, just hand the can to the customer. Sheesh.

[X_Digger]

89. A transfer is a reasonable accommodation, per CRA II / EEOC guidelines.

If she were an orthodox jew, would you feel the same way about not working from Friday sunset to Saturday evening?

Again-- reasonable is in the eye of the employer.

Until Title 7, or section 701 is repealed, employers have an obligation to make reasonable accommodations for folks' religion.

I'll never take advantage of it, since I don't have an imaginary sky daddy, but I can support the accommodation nonetheless.

[WinkyDink]

187. Why would one employee's gripe take precedence over another's subsequent one?

[X_Digger]

188. We do that all the time-- see what constitutes a hostile workplace, employment discrimination, etc.

What, you think things are perfectly fair at work? Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease, sometimes it gets replaced.

An employer has a legal obligation to respond to requests for religious accommodation. And no, the default response can't be, "Suck it up, buttercup, nobody else complained so that's fair."

[WinkyDink]

191. Interestingly, for this Muslim woman to want ANOTHER person to serve the alcohol FOR her, is to seek

to make, in the eyes of Allah, a sinner out of the other flight attendant.

http://www.aimislam.com/alcohol-in-islam/

[X_Digger]

192. Yeah, I'm not gonna tell someone how to do their religion, thanks. n/t

[WinkyDink]

258. I'll mock Islam as much as the next person mocks Christianity.

[X_Digger]

264. I left that concept behind in about the 3rd grade.

I'm personally an atheist, but I can support the history and legislative framework of protecting the free exercise of religion.

[WinkyDink]

271. Well, aren'y you special? I believe in govt hands-off religion, as in "Shall establish no....."

But I also hold to Equal-Opportunity mockery, of which EITHER ALL "religion" gets it on DU, or ONLY Christianity. But NEVER ONLY Islam.

[X_Digger]

279. "Mommy, he did it first!" -- sounds kinda not quite adult. n/t

[MADem]

198. If the division of labor is affected, and the employee can't carry out the elements of the job, then

something has gotta give.

[mercuryblues]

197. I think what a

few people are missing. There is more to alcohol than just serving. She can't collect trash, because the cups contained alcohol. She can't do inventory after flights, because the alcohol has to be inventoried, she can't re-stock the alcohol as needed. She can not work flights where she would be the only FA, because she would be required to do all that. The only thing she can do on the food service end is hand out a pack of pretzels.

She is putting a higher burden on her co-workers.

[riderinthestorm]

222. +10 million!!!! Nt

[MADem]

224. Most Expressjets flights are single flight attendant.

The ones that have two FAs have 'two tiered' service--business and coach, and the FAs each serve their own group.

It's an unreasonable burden, and it's bullshit. The Quranic prohibition is against drinking the stuff, not handing it out. She needs a new imam--she is using this "invention" in her head as an excuse to get out of her job (that she's been working at for four years, not having any trouble with the booze before her "conversion&quot with a little severance, instead of a "Nice knowing you--bye."

For example, Saudi Arabia, home of the guardians of THE Holy Places in Meccah and Medinah, invests in luxury hotels. In these hotels, outside of the Kingdom, liquor is served. LOTS of it. And they make a bundle from it. That means they are buying it in order to sell it. So long as THEY aren't drinking it, they aren't at fault. The citation is about a drop of liquor passing the lips of the devout, not 'anyone's' lips. There is no admonition to be a booze nanny.

When a country is "Islamic" then they follow Quranic law as though they assume everyone in the joint is Muslim. That's why you see restrictive laws in places like KSA and Iran, even though their perception of the default being Muslim isn't quite true. Before Iran "went Islamic" the people who sold and served booze and beer (and plenty of people who drank it, too--forgiveness being easier to obtain than permission) were Muslim. Now, there's an underground crew of booze runners in Iran--you can still get 'beverages' if you know where to look/who to ask.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/drunk-in-tehran-the-islamic-states-secret-party-scene-9217419.html

[Warren DeMontague]

240. Clearly expressjet needs to stop serving alcohol, then.

[pnwmom]

90. Someone on the video said they use small planes and sometimes there's only one

flight attendant.

And that the pilot can't go back and serve the drinks.

[X_Digger]

91. A shift / flight swap would sound reasonable in that case.

Much like some orthodox jews swap shifts to avoid working the Shabbat.

[pnwmom]

94. That's not a good analogy. They often don't know how full their flights will be till very close

to flight time.

Orthodox Jews know in advance when they will need to swap shifts.

[X_Digger]

96. Is the number of attendants based on passengers or plane size?

I thought it was the latter, not the former.

[TuxedoKat]

99. Based on plane size

And how many F/A's are required is determined by the FAA, I think, if memory serves correctly. So on a small jet there may only be three F/A's, one for first class and two for coach. If the one working in First Class doesn't want to serve alcohol to a passenger that requests it, the other two may be unable to go up front to service his/her passenger(s) because they have to serve the people in coach. The F/A's have a short amount of time to do their drink service sometimes so other accommodations may not be feasible. The F/A's usually bid on which positions they want to work on a given flight too, based on seniority. So even if the non-alcohol serving F/A worked in coach all the time where his/her coworker could serve the alcoholic drinks if more people wanted alcohol on a given flight then it places more work on one worker than the other. Also, it creates bidding issues with the seniority situation, even if the Muslim employee wanted to work in coach, so that he/she wouldn't have to serve alcohol because the other F/A working in coach could do it, he or she may not have the seniority to hold a coach position for a particular flight and may get relegated to first class if the other two F/As have the most seniority and want to work in coach.

[pnwmom]

110. Thanks for setting this all out so clearly. In short, it's not a simple accommodation. n/t

[TuxedoKat]

130. Thanks

Relaying all this from memory as a F/A many years ago, was hoping it wasn't confusing to people, but you can see even with three F/A's on a plane, would not always be feasible to accommodate because of seniority, which most if not all airlines go by.

[pnwmom]

136. You did a good job explaining it. This is so much more complicated than saying:

"just have someone else serve the alcohol."

[riderinthestorm]

102. 3/5ths of their flights are solo FA's. She can't work 3/5ths of the schedule already

then she has to be scheduled with a FA who is agreeable to doing her job for her.

How many of those are there out of the remaining available flights? Whose on vacation, whose sick, whose on sudden compassionate leave? Add in seniority issues and Jeez...I can see the scheduling getting impossible very fast.

And you don't think this is a hardship for the company?

[X_Digger]

107. Then the employer can go before the EEOC and explain why it's a hardship.

The whole complaint process allows for employers and employees to state their respective positions, explore alternatives (lateral transfers, shift swaps, alternate duties, etc). It's more like arbitration than a court proceeding.

If multiple proposed accommodations are rejected by the employee, then she'll likely be denied her complaint. If, on the other hand, the employer rejects proposed accommodations that the employee accepts, the EEOC will likely rule against them.

[Skittles]

111. making someone else do your job is BULLSHIT

if you cannot serve alcohol GET A JOB THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE ALCOHOL

[Reter]

144. What if someone wants to order bacon?

If she won't serve liquar, she almost certainly won't serve pork.

[X_Digger]

153. I'm not the religious police. Which tenets of her faith she holds important aren't up to me. n/t

[treestar]

13. They should

if they do not, they are hypocritical. But then the Republican emblem is in the dictionary next to that word.

[geek tragedy]

16. Having another attendant serve the alcohol seems reasonable . nt

[Bluenorthwest]

26. If the other attendants think it is reasonable. 'You should do my work for me because God' is not

really a free pass. Edited to add that Express Jet's fleet has 5 types of aircraft 3 of which use a single flight attendant, two of which use two attendants.

[riderinthestorm]

30. Ugh, so the company has to maneuver the schedule so she's never the single attendant

and when she works the two-person flight, the other worker has to handle all the booze requests cuz, religion!

Yeah. No way.

[smirkymonkey]

55. +1000

There are plenty of people looking for work that don't need special accommodations. She's lucky to have a job. Her co-workers should not have to pick up her slack.

[geek tragedy]

61. Single attendant planes does change the equation and likely

the outcome.

[Bluenorthwest]

68. At most they have two. Service of beverages is a large and crappy part of the job.

Plus, I do not at all dig the 'I can not touch it, but I can work in a place that sells it to people who consume it in close quarters which I share'. There are entire lines of work in which serving alcohol is not anyone's job ever. There are companies that do not in any way vend alcohol, tons of them. Even a ground job with an airline would not involve serving alcohol.
If I was religious I would not work with or around forbidden things because I think that is why they are forbidden and what forbidden means. I means have nothing to do with it.
But of course Muslims own shit tons of bars, clubs, hotels and vend vast seas of liquor for profit all over the world, so when they say they are against it, against is a term of art.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. Increase another employee's workload to accommodate religious bias? Fire her AND the court clerk.

And deny them both unemployment benefits since their actions (or inaction, as the case may be) were an absolute matter of choice.

[PoliticAverse]

33. The Court Clerk holds an elected position and can't be fired (although she can be impeached). n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. I did not know that... but I would dearly like to see her gone.

Gone gone gone.

[HassleCat]

64. Reasonable?

Tell you what. I'll come to work with you, and I won't do my fair share because my deity tells me it's wrong to do whatever I was hired to do. You won't mind doing your job and my job, right?

[MADem]

82. No. Not reasonable.

Say you have 20 minutes to do a full drinks service on a two FA puddle jumper flight of forty minutes. Two FAs can knock this out in fifteen minutes; one working alone will take twice that time. Since you need ten minutes after takeoff and before landing for seat belts/cabin prep, someone ain't gonna get their drinks or the FA will be rushed and stressed while Miz Waaah Religion sits back on her ass doing nothing.

It's not fair.

She can't be assigned to any of the small "One FA" planes, because she won't hand out beers. So she doesn't have to do any of those harder, labor intensive flights.

She needs to go. Or adjust her objections and understand that handing someone a beer isn't the same as consuming it.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. She needs a new gig. I have zero respect for that sort of thing. If she is opposed to alcohol she

should be opposed to being around it. I think 'no alcohol' means you are forbidden from having anything to do with it. If you are taking a job with a company that sells alcohol, you are already not abstaining from alcohol. Like Kim Davis she wants the pay while others do the work for her.

[Politicalboi]

25. So if Kim were gay

And refused to issue a marriage license to a straight couple due to her beliefs, you would be fine with that? An elected official refusing to do her job should be fired and fined for every day she refused to do her work. Both women should look for another job that accompanies their "religion".

[pinstikfartherin]

19. They're using it to show how Davis is being unfairly "persecuted"

Their argument is placing these to instances against one another. In other words, "Kim was arrested and persecuted for her beliefs while this MUSLIM gets to sue for not being accommodated - Sharia Law is coming!11!!!"

Of course, they don't pay attention to the differences in the cases.

Gag.

[Politicalboi]

22. Alright!!!!

When, when can I claim that smoking marijuana IS my religion, so I shouldn't have to take a drug test for pot. And I can truly be put in jail over my religion. Why am I being persecuted? I'm not bringing my religion to work, how can they persecute me at home on my own time? I would never be able to work in a county office and make $80,000 a year because of my "religion" I practice at home. .

[CrispyQ]

23. Can I just say,

"...it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely,"

What a crock of shit! What about the other employees who have to perform all aspects of the job? How is it fair that one person gets preferential treatment? And over religious beliefs? Get another job.

One of my online friends wrote that she was going to get a job as a nanny & refuse to change diapers because it's against her religion to touch shit. I about spewed all over my monitor.

[msongs]

24. so she can refuse to serve non-muslims, bare-headed women, or any other thing she decides

violates her sincerely held beliefs?

[MADem]

83. She shouldn't even be talking to strange men, if we're gonna get down to it.

I mean, really--she's being selective about what she finds objectionable. I think she's playing a game to get out of doing those single FA flights, where one person has to do EVERYTHING--departure checklist, announcements, service, prepare cabin for landing, help everybody off the little plane, maybe even help with that bags, etc.

This is all about getting outta work, I think.

[pnwmom]

112. Excellent point. she's being very selective in which beliefs need to be accommodated.

Is she also refusing to serve pork?

[Arugula Latte]

29. What bullshit. So sick of these whiny religious nutbags using their mythology in this way.

"I can't do X, Y, or Z because an angry invisible sky god from the Middle East of many centuries ago will be displeased!" Utter nonsense.

Get over it, or quit.

[smirkymonkey]

56. +1000

God, I thought I was hostile toward religion before, but after the last few weeks I am downright completely against it.

[rug]

133. Amend the Constitution then.

[PoliticAverse]

32. EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination (5-29-2013)

Agency Charges Trucking Company Failed to Accommodate and Wrongfully Terminated Two Muslim Employees For Refusal to Deliver Alcohol Due to Religious Beliefs

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

PEORIA, Ill. - Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol. According to EEOC District Director John P. Rowe, who supervised administrative investigation prior to filing the lawsuit, "Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."

Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. The EEOC filed suit, (EEOC v. Star Transport, Inc., Civil Action No. 13 C 01240-JES-BGC, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Peoria, assigned to U.S. District Judge James E. Shadid), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its statutory conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the fired truck drivers and an order barring future discrimination and other relief.

John Hendrickson, the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Chicago District Office said, "Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

[riderinthestorm]

39. That judgement put Star Transport out of business iirc

How large a company was Star Transport does anyone remember? I thought they were pretty small - like less than 20 drivers. Having two of them refuse to deliver would have been problematic.

[Ilsa]

34. I don't think a reasonable can be made for her.

I doubt other flight attendants can cover for her, and I don't think they should be required to.

She has no business pushing her religious beliefs on passengers.

[J_J_]

36. Bring this up the next time a Republican complains about the treatment of Kim Davis

I figured Duers would think it is absurd to work in a job where your duties violate your religion, then not do the job...

But I would really like the corporate 'news' distractors to bring this up...there is no way in hell these same people would support this woman.

GOP are hypocrites, just like Kim Davis, not that their hypocrisy has ever stopped them before.

[kairos12]

45. Hypocrisy links all things reich wing. Their shining example is Napoleon from "Animal Farm."

Orwell would not be surprised by today's rethugs.

[displacedtexan]

42. I got stuck in a line of cars leaving Dulles airport because...

... a Muslim woman wouldn't accept parking lot money from a Jewish man. We were all outside our cars in August heat, waiting for someone in authority to arrive and settle the dispute. What a nightmare that was. One guy finally started directing traffic so we could all get into another lane, and we left before anyone arrived to deal with the situation.

[kairos12]

46. ...and Hobby Lobby has opened the gates to much more of this.

[uppityperson]

43. Try to make a reasonable accommodation, if that didn't work, needed to find another job.

[HassleCat]

58. She should takea clue from the Iranian students

When I was in college, before Shah Pahlavi was deposed, there was a large contingent of Iranian students at my school. Most were connected o the ruling family, and most had money. They partied hard. Really hard. When they were about to consume alcohol, they would perform a little absolution ritual. "It is written that not a drop of alcohol shall pass the lips of a true believer," they would say. Then they dipped a finger into the glass and flicked one drop of beer onto the floor. "That's the drop that did not pass my lips," they laughed.

Islam does tell its followers not to drink alcohol. I don't know of any prohibition that prevents giving it to others. It will be interesting to see how she makes her case.

[JoePhilly]

59. There is no test to determine if the belief has grounding in any religion.

What constitutes a religious conviction? Who picks?

If I say I believe something, the court has no method to claim that the belief is not strongly held or religious in nature.

You can make up any interpretation you want and claim it.

[HassleCat]

63. True, in theory

But courts often reject demands to accommodate religious belief when it's clear the plaintiff is making up some "alternative" interpretation of a recognized religion.

[JoePhilly]

65. That's the slippery slope I'm looking forward to.

Because as soon as the courts start trying to decide what is and is not a "real religious belief", it's game over.

Think of it, a court ruling on what is and is not an actual authentic religious belief.

Suddenly the courts are promoting religion, or preventing the free exercise of religion.

The more of these cases we see, the better.

[WinkyDink]

104. Your Iranian peers didn't know their English grammar, then. "Not a drop" is not a synonym for "Drop

did not...."

[HassleCat]

139. I think maybe they knew that (eom)

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

157. I grew up with a lot of Iranian exiles in Orange County

Those guys smoked more pot and drank more whiskey in a weekend than an entire Willy Nelson concert.

[mnhtnbb]

62. I am sick of this shit. The whole thing will fall apart if everyone has to have an accommodation

Last edited Sun Sep 6, 2015, 04:33 PM - Edit history (1)

for every peculiar religious belief.

In this case, the airline should offer to transfer her to a ground agent job where serving alcohol
is not required as part of the job duties. If she doesn't want to take it, fine, let her quit or be terminated.
Why should other flight attendants have to do part of her job for her?

[7wo7rees]

70. In July of 2010 we took a taxi at DFW to home in Irving.

We got in late, we asked him to stop at the 7-11 on our way home, we wanted cigarettes and a bottle of wine. He refused and we had to demand for him to pull it over.
It was a harrowing experience. And yes, he justified his position because of his religion.
It was only when we demanded for him to pull over and we would call someone else that he relented.

F all the fundamentalists everywhere!!!

[pnwmom]

93. There was a controversy also at an airport where the Muslim drivers refused

to take people with dogs -- even seeing-eye dogs.

[Arugula Latte]

97. WTF?!

Religion ...

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

156. On several occasions I have had taxi drivers refuse to take me and my brother

I guess we look like a gay couple.

[Initech]

72. Such bullshit.

Do we now have to accommodate for the religious beliefs of every employee? It starts with one or two cases... where does it end?

[Codeine]

73. The stupid fundie imbecile doesn't have to drink it.

Plenty of observant, pious Muslims provide alcohol to others at liquor stores, convenience stores, cornershops, and gas stations every day all over the western world. If it's okay for them why not for this piece of ignorant fundie filth?

[MADem]

77. Her "religious accommodation" causes an undue burden on other FAs.

She was not a Muslim when she was hired.

I say "G'bye...! Yer fired!"

If she can't serve the alcohol, she cannot do her job, because that IS an element of her job. Further, if she is truly devout, she shouldn't be working in an environment where alcohol is consumed.

On a puddlejumper, she's the ONLY FA--so should that be a "No beer for YOU" flight because SHE can't deal? Or do they have to give her the Special Snowflake treatment and only schedule her for "certain" flights?

Feh--she's in the wrong line of work.

They should offer her a job as a gate agent. If she refuses that "accommodation," she should be fired.

Some people are not suited for some jobs. She is not suited for this one.

[Skittles]

125. absolutely correct

this is insane, "accommodation" by forcing others to do your job - it is absolute nonsense

[Fred Sanders]

155. Then you would be in favour of changing the constitution and re-writing all of legal precedent on

"reasonable accommodation" for religious practises by employees of private business?

The elected government clerk is not a private business, and the religious accommodation she sought was patently unreasonable and directly contrary to the law....to refuse to do a government mandated legal function..apples to oranges comparisons throughout the thread as well as ignorance of the law.

[JHB]

80. No, they're demanding to know why she's not in jail like the Kentucky woman...

...since they're not bothering to recognize a difference between a dispute within a private company and an elected official defying a court order.

In other words, the usual argle-bargle.

[JCMach1]

88. does she pray 5 times a day too? Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose...

[CharlotteVale]

95. They should, she's a religious hypocrite just like they all are.

She has no problem accepting a salary from a corporation that sells and makes a profit on alcohol; she just won't serve it herself.

[WinkyDink]

100. "it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can

practice their religion freely,"

THIS IS ASININE.

[LeftishBrit]

109. She should not have taken the job under those circumstances...

Or chosen to fly only with airlines that do not serve alcohol; e.g. those with largely Muslim clientele.

'no one should have to choose between their career and religion'

But people do all the time have to choose between career and religion or other strong beliefs. A Quaker who is adamantly against war under all circumstances should not join the military. A strong vegetarian should not take a job in a shop or restaurant where they will have to sell meat. I would not be very suitable for a job with most banks.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. Add me to "if you can't do the job find a different job".

I am the High Pope of DeMontaguism.

I'm gonna say my religion demands I stay home and sleep instead of working. My religion also demands I get paid for it.

DONT YOU OPPRESS MY DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF

[yuiyoshida]

137. Republicans would physically throw her off the plane!

And everyone knows it.

[SheilaT]

138. A very long time ago, when I was trying to get hired

as a flight attendant -- so long ago that they were all called stewardesses -- I recall it being made very clear to me in an interview that part of the job involved serving alcohol, and if I had any problem with that, then I would not be hired. I'd say that back then the airlines may have had a problem with certain people who didn't want to serve alcohol. It is a part of the job.

So add me to the "She can serve alcohol or resign" crowd.

Since generally speaking all the flight attendants serve the passengers, her refusal to serve alcohol does put a burden on the others. Maybe on very large planes there is one f/a who only works the galley the entire flight, preparing food and making up the food and beverage carts, but sounds like this woman wouldn't put the alcohol on the beverage carts either.

But this is an airline that flies small planes. She needs to be offered a ground job, even if it's loading and unloading baggage, and if she turns it down, she's terminated.

[David__77]

141. I don't personally consider that accommodation to be reasonable.

I understand that the government makes that decision that is binding on employers. I personally think that serving menu items as quite integral to the position of flight attendant.

[Jake Stern]

149. Going to give her the same sympathy I'd give a Jewish server who has to bring a customer a BLT. . .

None.

It's the same for a pharmacist required to handle BC medication or a Muslim cabbie who is facing a fare that has a guide dog - if you can't do the job then find a different one.

[Devil Child]

158. If religion is getting in the way of a job switch jobs.

Another example of religionists expecting the world to conform to their beliefs. This flight attendant is in the wrong just as the christian pharmacists who refuse to dispense medication or Kim Davis refusing marriages because of their "beliefs

[840high]

159. +10

[Snobblevitch]

160. I don't know what the law is on a job

with a company such as an airline.

A couple of years ago, muslim cab drivers in Minnesota refused to take fares that included people with dogs and/or alcohol. They were ordered to take those fares by a judge. The cab drivers had a license to drive the cabs and could not refuse fares or they would lose their license.

[hifiguy]

214. I live in Mpls.

I believe some cabbies' licenses were threatened with revocation and airport privileges - a MAJOR source of cab revenue here - were on the verge of being curtailed. That shut them up in a BIG hurry.

[kiva]

166. From 2014:

Some drivers of the zone-based taxis operating out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport have notified their companies they don't want to drive the cabs for religious reasons, citing rooftop placards that are advertising the upcoming Gay Games.

Hopkins released a statement saying that two of the three taxi companies operating at the airport -- Ace and Yellow Taxi – were informed by several of their drivers they will no longer participate in the airport's dedicated taxi cab program.

Patrick Keenan, general manager for the third company, Americab, said two of his drivers also have opted not to drive because of the Gay Games ads. The drivers are Muslims, Keenan and Hopkins spokeswoman Jackie Mayo said.

The drivers told their companies that their decision was based on religious reasons, Hopkins said in its statement.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/04/some_cleveland_hopkins_cab_dri.html

[Warren DeMontague]

178. And people around here shit a collective brick over Uber's pesky "libertarianism"

Well, this is why people may want other options besides crony-based taxi companies with manufactured regional shortage.

[kiva]

189. Uber drivers are also guilty of this

http://consumerist.com/2015/04/21/judge-uber-must-face-lawsuit-claiming-discrimination-against-blind-passengers-with-service-dogs/

Judge: Uber Must Face Lawsuit Claiming Discrimination Against Blind Passengers With Service Dogs
Months after the National Federation of the Blind claimed in a federal civil rights lawsuit that some of Uber’s drivers have discriminated against blind passengers by refusing to pick them up when they had guide dogs — and in one case, allegedly putting a service dog in a car’s trunk — a judge has ruled that the ride-hailing company must defend itself against the suit.

Uber had sought to dismiss the lawsuit [PDF], which accused drivers of refusing to transport service dogs in as many as 40 alleged incidents cited by the advocacy group, but a federal judge said in a decision last night that the plaintiffs could pursue the claim that Uber is a travel service subject to potential liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Uber had argued that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue under the ADA or state law claims and that it isn’t a public accommodation under the ADA. As such, Uber said the plaintiffs should be held to arbitration to settle their concerns.

-snip-

The group claimed that sometimes in extreme weather, drivers would arrive to pick up a customer and then, realizing that person was blind and standing with a service dog, would often abandon this riders. Drivers would sometimes charge cancellation fees after, the complaint alleged.

There's are also issues regarding people with disabilities and Uber. The answer, to me, is pretty simple - enforce legislation meant to protect consumers.

[hifiguy]

215. Putting a service dog in the TRUNK?

is WRONG with some people?

[Warren DeMontague]

219. I'm not surprised, and I agree with your last sentence.

but as someone who has experienced the dismal unavailability and crap service of the traditional cab company market in more than a few urban areas over the years, I also understand why people are hungry for more choices.

[Bluenorthwest]

293. Uber is the same thing without any recourse.

And often without any religious excuses, just 'fuck you I don't do wheelchairs'.

[Warren DeMontague]

297. Fair enough.

But it might be helpful if the anti-uber crusaders might acknowledge that uber isnt materializing in a vacuum, that there is an actual problem with the status quo, beyond "there are 3 cabs available for every 10,000 customers, and the 3 guys whose uncle bribed a dude on the city council 20 years ago to corner -and freeze- the medallions are put-upon union members who wil be unfairly victimized by the sharing economy if people start using uber for the rides they currently have to wait two hours to get"

[awoke_in_2003]

190. Of course they won't

But, personally, I am getting tired of hearing about people who can't do their jobs and using their mythology of choice as an excuse.

[RandySF]

203. I'm sure she knew the job included serving alcohol.

[MADem]

218. She DID the job for years serving alcohol.

Then she converted, and now she's all "Ewww, can't do that."

She's looking for settlement money, I think. I hope they offer her a ground job (those jobs really suck--she'll not have to touch that demon rum, though).

[Pisces]

221. No one is forcing her to drink the alcohol. Sorry it was part of the job description when

she took the job. She must do her job or get another job that does not require her contradict her beliefs.

[oberliner]

223. Allah has cursed Alcohol

The Prophet (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “Allah has cursed Khamr (intoxicants – alcohol, wine etc.), the one who drinks it, the one who pours it for others, the one who sells it, the one who buys it, the one who makes it, the one who it is made for, the one who carries it, the one who it is carried to and the one who consumes the money from its sale.”

http://hadithaday.org/those-who-deserve-the-curse/allah-has-cursed-alcohol/#sthash.9DRw96UN.dpuf

[Warren DeMontague]

260. "one who consumes the money from its sale" - who does she get her paycheck from?

A company that profits from the sale of alcohol.

She really should quit the job, if it's that important to her.

[Arugula Latte]

262. Was this before or after he rode the winged horse to Heaven?

Sometimes I get that mixed up.

[riderinthestorm]

266. Interesting she's being selective in her outrage. Alcohol - bad. 5x/day prayer - meh

even though the prayer is one of the five required pillars to be a Muslim, she's utterly uninterested in fighting for that right....



No she wants to get out of the worst part of the job by citing her "faith" (cough), alcohol service and all the shitty parts of that - dealing with drunks, cutting them off, getting pinched and slapped by drunken assholes etc.

If she were truly pious she wouldn't be picking and choosing to comply with only parts of that Surah which also demands she's cursed for even associating with anyone who is involved in alcohol sales. Allah demands she quit altogether.

[Bluenorthwest]

291. And yet the Sultan of Brunei owns the Polo Lounge, which is one bar among many owed by him

Last edited Thu Sep 10, 2015, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

and other wealthy Muslims. The Sultan will execute you for being gay, but he sells seas of liquor and gathers up the profits from it which suggests that Allah is a secondary concern at best. Does it not?

[DFW]

239. You'd think she was asked to perform in-flight pig slaughtering

All she had to do was serve drinks to others, not drink it herself. Where in the Koran does it lay out etiquette for Muslim flight attendants anyhow?

[SoCalDem]

242. She's 40 ..and SHE changed things up..not the airline

She's probably tired of the hassle of drinks serving & decided to slide a bit in her last few years..

An expert in Islam said the other day that SERVING drinks to others is NOT a biggie..It's the drinking of drinks that;s the issue.

One's religion should never be "expressed" at work unless you work at a church/temple/synagogue/mosque/store-front-jesus school/etc.

a JOB has certain things that need doing..and people are paid to do those things. It's just that simple

[Warren DeMontague]

257. Honestly, let's just let the most controlling fundamentalists among us write the rules for everyone

and be done with it.

Because apparently asking anyone, anywhere to just do the fucking job they were hired to do and leave their DERPLY HERLD RELERGERS BERLERFS at home, is discrimination and oppression, man!

[Raster]

253. No one is asking her to consume alcohol, now are they?

Islam prohibits it's adherents from CONSUMING alcohol, not serving it to others.

[WinkyDink]

259. See post #223.

[Arugula Latte]

261. Well, it's not like logic or reason has ever intersected w/ any of these Abrahamic religions.

[PoliticAverse]

277. Please see this post about federal law, delivering alcohol, and an actual EEOC case...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7145464

[JI7]

286. what's funny is she says she only found out about the restrictions of alcohol after she converted

even many non muslims know there are limits with alcohol (although people wil practice differently).

converts always seem to be the one with issues in these things.

[ileus]

290. Who would drink that crap anyway.

[stonecutter357]

300. Yes do your job.

"Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.