Muslim truck drivers who refused to deliver beer win $240,000 lawsuit

[PoliticAverse]

Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2015, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

An Illinois jury awarded $240,000 in damages and back pay to two former truck drivers who claimed religious discrimination when they were fired in 2009 after refusing to make beer deliveries.

A jury was convened to determine damages after US District Court Judge James E. Shadid ruled in favor of Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale when Star Transport admitted liability in March. The men, both of whom are Somali-American Muslims, were represented by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must make accommodations for workers' religious beliefs unless doing so would impose "undue hardship" on the business.

Read the rest at: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1027/Muslim-truck-drivers-refuse-to-deliver-beer-win-240-000-lawsuit

Edited to add...

EEOC press release on the case from May, 2013...
http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

DU discussion from September on a similar case:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7145256

[Warpy]

2. In addition, Muslims weren't being asked to drink the beer

only to drive the truck and help unload cardboard boxes of it. Their hands would never have been sullied and they don't have the right to force their religious proscriptions onto people who aren't of their religion.

I don't agree with the interpretation of Title VII this jury ruled on. I hope it is overturned.

[1939]

4. Otherwise it is a precedent

For pharmacy employees and birth control.

[SusanCalvin]

48. Really. Same principle.

If it's part of your job and it's legal, do it.

This is not the same as such things as accommodations for religious holidays. That ruling is flat wrong.

[Warpy]

6. Legal or not, companies are going to start to ask prospective new hires

if their religions will forbid them to do any part of the job.

People with morbid religious scruples are going to find themselves less employable than ex cons.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. I'm not sure it's legal to ask questions about religion

Unless it's a religious organization that is hiring.

[Mosby]

42. its legal to ask the prospective employee

If there is anything that would prevent them from doing the job as detailed on the job description.

[SusanCalvin]

49. Yep, and if I were an employer I'd start doing that.

And I'd get real specific in the job description.

This ruling will cause more problems than it solves.

[Warpy]

53. I think this one might squeak by

since it's a question of whether or not an applicant can do the job--all of it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

54. Seeing as the company admitted they were in the wrong

and lost the suit, then no, I don't think it would "squeak by".

The law is what it is - if there is a way to accommodate religious beliefs that don't present an undue hardship to the employer, then the employer is required to provide the accommodation.

And there was obviously no undue hardship here, as the company permitted drivers to switch loads previously.

[smirkymonkey]

8. +1000

[Skittles]

59. THANK YOU - it's pretty freaking simple

before you accept employment MAKE SURE IT FITS WITH YOUR RELIGION

[hifiguy]

68. If the "offended party" weren't a Muslim

people would unanimously be going ballistic over this. But for some tolerance is most assuredly a one-way street.

Remember Hobby Lobby, you goddam hypocrites? I do.

[MattBaggins]

69. This is out of control

As a nurse I could refuse to administer calcium channel blockers claiming they were developed with embryonic tissues.

Refuse to administer certain vaccines that used fetal cells to develop growth mediums.

[emsimon33]

22. I hope that it is overturned, also, and I am very pro religious freedom--just don't take the job

This has become just plain silliness. No one is asking pharmacists to take the birth control drugs or morning after pills, or clerk to marry people of the same sex themselves, or drink the liquid that they are delivering. STOP THE NONSENSE!

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. Well, Christians chose to go there.

So pardon me if I laugh at them.



Now, I await the first lawsuit when companies refuse to hire religious people because demanding a religious accommodation places an undue hardship on making profits and companies choose to avoid the problem.

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. Let me know how that works.

I, to, am a devotee of the zHigh Priest Eich-pi-El

[hifiguy]

15. Same for my Dudeism

but we add White Russians and nice rugs that tie the place together.

[Lizzie Poppet]

28. Happy Hot Dog Friday!

[Lizzie Poppet]

65. Onward, Golden Apple Corps! (nm)

[hifiguy]

43. Aww, such a cute chaos goddess!

[Lizzie Poppet]

66. I love the costuming! (nm)

[hifiguy]

67. She's almost cute enough

to be a pony.

Which from a brony is very high praise.

[Dr. Strange]

45. Dudeism is not a religion!

It's just, like, his opinion, man.

[hifiguy]

47. Sorry, man, but I gotta disagree

The Church of the Latter-Day Dude: http://dudeism.com/

Come join the slowest-growing religion in the world – Dudeism. An ancient philosophy that preaches non-preachiness, practices as little as possible, and above all, uh…lost my train of thought there. Anyway, if you’d like to find peace on earth and goodwill, man, we’ll help you get started. Right after a little nap.

First, you might want to get ordained as a Dudeist priest. There are almost 300,000 worldwide.

[SusanCalvin]

51. In a rational world,

Anything you say is a religion is a religion. How you gonna prove it is or isn't?

[emsimon33]

21. I am a raving liberal and I agree--don't take the job!

If your religious beliefs would interfere with your doing the job, then go get another job!!!!!!!!!

[KittyWampus]

11. unbelievable. the job is to DELIVER beer, not to drink it. Islam tradition says

MUSLIMS can't drink beer.

[SusanCalvin]

50. There you go. nt

[hifiguy]

13. How is that a good thing in any way?

Not one bit different than the fundys who won't fill birth control prescriptions.

HORRIBLE decision and I hope it is overturned on appeal.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

14. How could they get ever get hired?

Seems odd to me.......

[PoliticAverse]

17. Because the trucking company didn't ask if applicants wouldn't deliver

shipments containing alcohol? A question which apparently according to the
EEOC and the law would have been improper.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

20. hmmm....

still seems funny to me. I haven't read the article though to know if this was a general distributor or a beer distributor. See if its a trucking company delivering all kinds of stuff, I could see not giving them this assignment. Kind of like a person who is Jewish taking off Jewish holidays. It just feels like there is a detail missing here somewhere. I suppose I could read the article............

[Skittles]

56. I'm sure they will consider it now

[closeupready]

18. Good for them. And this is a jury who voted unanimously.

So there's that.

[Logical]

24. Idiotic to me. Like idiots no willing to hand out condoms. nt

[MowCowWhoHow III]

19. Not all religious lunacy is created equal apparently

I need a drink.

[emsimon33]

23. Will Jewish truck drivers refuse to deliver bacon!!!!!

Give me a break!!!!!! There is a war in this country but it is not on Christmas; it is on common sense!

[X_Digger]

26. Actually, an accommodation is often made for observant jews who don't want to work on the sabbath.

This part of the civil rights act has been in place since 1973 or 1974.

[WinkyDink]

30. So? We don't have a 7-day work week. Apples, oranges.

[X_Digger]

33. It's a reasonable accommodation-- as was the one that the company in the OP made.

Observant jews regularly swap shifts so as to keep from working on Saturday.

The drivers in the EEOC suit didn't work less than other drivers, they just swapped deliveries.

Apples, apples.

[dhol82]

32. That has nothing to do with this case

The men were not asked to work on a holy day. They only needed to deliver a caseload of merchandise.

What's the problem?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. It has everything to do with this case

It's a religious accommodation, which when reasonable, companies are required by law to allow.

The company in this case admitted they were wrong, since they permitted drivers to switch loads all the time, but when these guys wanted to because of what they would be hauling, they fired them.

[dhol82]

35. Then the company was stupid in what they started

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. They didn't "start" anything

This law has been on the books for 50 years - it's part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If the trucking company allowed other drivers to switch loads and routes without considering it an undue hardship, why not these guys?

[X_Digger]

38. The problem is the company didn't find it an undue hardship to accommodate the guys before..

.. and so claiming later that it was a hardship doesn't hold much water.

[Marrah_G]

27. I think that is bullshit

No one is making them DRINK the beer.

[WinkyDink]

29. The law is a ass---again. (I wish I had had a religion that banned grading student essays!)

[PoliticAverse]

31. EEOC press release from May, 2013 on the case...

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

[HassleCat]

36. This is stupid

They didn't have to drink the beer, serve the beer, come in contact with the beer in any way, etc. Can I refuse to deliver Korans because they contain blasphemy? Where is this religious nonsense going to end?

[Skittles]

40. ridiculous

why should anyone be rewarded for refusing to perform their job duties? When they don't work, someone has to do their work for them - it's bullshit.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

46. They could have traded routes/loads with someone else

It's not like they were saying they wouldn't work - they just wouldn't haul beer.

Have you never traded shifts with a co-worker because they had something important they had to do? I know I have.

[Skittles]

55. if hauling beer is one of your job duties you should perform said duty

if you don't want to haul beer, find a job where hauling beer is not one of your duties........ever had a job where beer was not involved? I know I have.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

57. The job was delivery of goods

Beer was among those goods, but not the only one. If beer was the only product they delivered, I would agree with you 100%.

But if they allowed people to trade hauls/routes for non-religious reasons, which they did, then there is no reason they couldn't allow people to trade hauls/routes for religious reasons.

[Skittles]

58. it's bullshit

find a job where you don't have to deliver ANY PRODUCT of which you do not approve

it's fucking NONSENSE

before you accept a job MAKE SURE YOU CAN PERFORM THE DUTIES

[SickOfTheOnePct]

60. Well, the law disagrees with you

and I have no problem with that. If it's an easy accommodation that doesn't present an undue hardship to the business, I see no reason not to do it, unless the owner is just trying to be an asshole, which seemed to be the case here.

[Skittles]

61. I don't think it is reasonable not to perform a job duty

END OF STORY

[SickOfTheOnePct]

62. Happily the law disagrees with you n/t

[Skittles]

63. LOL, I am sure you just LOVE Kim Davis

*DONE HERE*

[SickOfTheOnePct]

64. And of course you would be wrong n/t

[Dawson Leery]

41. Absurd.

All of those around here who are defending the man should remember you condemned Hobby Lobby for making the same argument regarding birth control.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

44. There is a huge difference between the two

In the Hobby Lobby case, a corporation was demanding that it be able to force the religious beliefs of the owner onto employees in their private lives.

This case is two men asking to switch loads, which the company admitted in court it had allowed other drivers to do. Allowing these guys to do so would have made no difference - the shipments still would have been delivered.

Where I do see this having implications is in businesses that provide services for weddings. A bakery can't say "We refuse to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples because of our religious beliefs", but an individual baker or decorator may well be able to say "I refuse to bake/decorate the wedding cakes for same-sex couples because of my religious beliefs", and if there is another baker or decorator at the business that can do the work, they'll most likely be covered by the law.

[SusanCalvin]

52. Ah, thanks for the clarification.

If they switched loads, and that was commonly done, and it caused no problem for the business, then I reconsider my position stated elsewhere on this thread.