Muslim truck drivers refuse to deliver beer, win $240,000 lawsuit
LINK :
http://news.yahoo.com/muslim-truck-drivers-refuse-deliver-beer-win-240-172947936.html
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.
Recommended: Sunni and Shiite Islam: Do you know the difference? Take our quiz.
As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh explained to The Washington Post, the trucking company admitted that drivers often switched their assignments , meaning it would have been reasonable to accommodate the men's request, rather than firing them.
The jury delivered its verdict in 45 minutes, on Oct. 20. However, the case appears to have picked up national attention when Fox News' Megyn Kelly invited the channel's legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on air Monday, where the two criticized the government-appointed agency for cherry picking cases to serve a political agenda.
"It’s unfortunate when the government interferes in a private dispute over religious views and takes sides, and chooses one religion over another ," Judge Napolitano said, responding to Ms. Kelly's accusation that the government had not provided Christians who object to workplace demands with the same protections as the Muslim truck drivers.
Kelly specifically cited the cases of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk briefly jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses after the Supreme Court's decision to legalize gay marriage nationwide, and private bakers' disputed rights to refuse serving gay couples.
Critics who told Ms. Davis "If you can't do the job, don't take the job," or resign, ought to be saying the same thing to workers of other faiths, Kelly said.
According to Professor Volokh, the US Civil Rights Act "rejects" the idea that employees should just resign when their beliefs come into conflict with their responsibilities, and has often been used to protect Christians: a 2012 settlement, for example, when the EEOC represented a Jehovah's Witness fired for refusing to raise the American flag , which violated his religious views.
However, as both liberal and conservative analysts have pointed out, under the Civil Rights Act, elected public officials are exempt from some of the law's protections, although Kentucky law restores some of those rights to elected officials like Davis.
County clerks are asked to “certify that [couples have] met the state requirements for marriage. So her religious opposition to same-sex marriage is absolutely irrelevant in this context," Columbia law professor Katherine Franke argued on National Public Radio, contrasting Davis' personal views of marriage with the legal definition. "Couples in Kentucky are being asked to pay the price of her religious observance.”
Davis was released from jail after 5 days, and permitted to return to work, where her deputies continued to issue marriage licenses whose language had been slightly altered, but, as her lawyers argue in the ongoing case , still legal.
But religious discrimination lawsuits, from workers of all faiths, seem unlikely to fizzle from public view any time soon.
Esquire writer Dave Holmes suggests that such lawsuits present an enticing political strategy, though for quite a different reason than what the Fox commentators allege.
When gay couples "are withheld the right to marry, they lose something real," he wrote last month. On the other hand, the way rights cases have been framed in the past, gay marriage opponents merely lose "a concept," a distinction Holmes says helped Americans accept the legalization of gay marriage.
But once the issues are framed as workplace discrimination, he argues, something very real is at stake, that everyone can understand and appreciate regardless of creed or culture: a job.
Related stories
Tags
Who is online
112 visitors
first comment :
The award amount seems a bit excessive . This legal action has the effect of squelching certain industries . What would happen if Wiccans started to make complaints against their beliefs ?
first comment :
The award amount seems a bit excessive . This legal action has the effect of squelching certain industries . What would happen if Wiccans started to make complaints against their beliefs ?
Thanks for putting "first comment". I'm not accustomed to starting a few pages from the back of the book and reading to the end, then backing up past where I started a few pages and reading to where I started before and doing this until I get to the first page and reading a few pages to get to the last page which is only a few pages from what seems to be the start of the book. LOL
I always put "first comment" and enter that immediately . That way an eager beaver like John Russell can't get in there before my first comment and mess up the sequence ... especially if he quits the site . Really screws thing up !
I'm guessing only Muslims can get these types of accommodations. Maybe because they are illsuited for living in the modern civilized world.
employers must make accommodations for workers' religious beliefs unless doing so would impose "undue hardship" on the business.
I'd like to see how they determine "undue hardship". This sounds like a logistical nightmare to define with any precision .
So, if I was a Muslim or a Jew, I could apply to and get hired to work on a pig farm and never have to do any work because of my religion......yeah, that makes sense.
So, if I was a Muslim or a Jew, I could apply to and get hired to work on a pig farm and never have to do any work because of my religion......yeah, that makes sense.
I wonder what would happen if these were Christians instead of Muslims. There are Christians who also consider alcohol to be verboten.
There are so many facets to this dispute : what religion ; what issues they are opposed to ; what damages should they receive ?
Although you might have a case for Christians & alcohol I think that the "fruit of the vine" is covered quite thoroughly in the bible . Marijuana not so much nor other "drugs " which have a tradition in other cultures . In Peru they chew on coca leaves to deal with fatigue at high altitudes . Sounds like a valuable substance if it is devoid of destructive side effects [unlike alcohol which has well recognized side effects] .
Regardless of whose faith parameters were being considered, Star Transport appears to have enough employees and tractors to have given the religious accommodation. The company transports a variety of goods, beverage but one, drivers are not hired to deliver specific cargo which is probably why they lost in court.
Other than professing a belief system, Kim Davis' claims have nothing to do with this case.
I forsee a new hiring interview policy coming for this company . They are going to serve beer at the interviews ! At least that way they weed out the "undesirables" ...
Petey,
Perhaps there's a future job for you in the HHS
Lynn ,
In your case perhaps they would provide a light white wine instead of beer . Must appeal to all tastes !
LOL, perhaps! Although I'd prefer a bold Cabernet or Merlot.
Lynn ,
That is a bold choice ! I am concerned for those interviewees who must watch their waistlines . Having a low cal beer as an option is a poor choice . Those taste hideous !
Merlot. Always the Merlot. No matter what some so-called gourmets may say, it even goes with fish and white meat.
Red goes with everything, even after Labor Day, unlike white!! I think my wine bigotry is showing...yep, I detest white wine! I'll own it, I'm out of the shadows now - love the reds, all the reds (even blends).
I wonder if it is against the law in the USA to interview potential employees and determine if there is some reason why they would not do the job they were being hired to do. I know that in Canada unlawful discrimination in hiring includes reasons of age, colour, religion, sex/sexual preference, ethnicity, nationality, disability (save for one that prevents a person from doing the job - for example you can refuse to hire a blind photographer, proof reader, or lab assistant who must use a microscope, etc.) Of course, what can an employer do when a person converts to a religion wherein it is contrary to the beliefs of that religion to do some of what you were hired to do? I have seen that the USA is acquiescing to allowing a person to use religion as a tool to make claims, like the taxi drivers or bus drivers who refuse to allow seeing eye dogs in their vehicles, or an Abercrombie and Fitch employee who demanded to be allowed to disregard the company's dress code.
These demands to others allow for and comply with their specific beliefs seem to be coming from only one religion that I know of. I'm sure it is going to become rampant and all-encompassing in the future as they experience more and more victories. God help the American way of life.
against the law in the USA to interview potential employees and determine if there is some reason why they would not do the job they were being hired to do.
I think it is illegal to inquire about someone's religion . But based on their names alone that much should be clear without asking ...
I was just thinking. Wouldn't it be enslavement of an employer if they could never terminate a person's employment? Surely providing sufficient notice, or providing a payment that is based on the number of years of employment would enable a person to fire someone without cause. As well, is an employer forced to hire any person who applies for a job? Surely not.
How does beer delivery company avoid hiring someone who won't deliver the one thing their company delivers? You refuse to do the job, go find a job that doesn't offend your religious beliefs.
How does beer delivery company avoid hiring someone who won't deliver the one thing their company delivers? You refuse to do the job, go find a job that doesn't offend your religious beliefs.
Kim Davis??? Somali-African Muslims? C'mon Kelly - apples and oranges.
The article only briefly mentions the Christian bakers, but I think that is the more applicable parallel here than Kim Davis.
And Pharmacists who refuse to provide the abortion pill.......
The comparison between the bakers and the pharmacist seems to be an exact comparison to me . If one is penalized under the law so should the other . I'm not certain why there was a different outcome ...
Here's a quote directly from the article :
According to Professor Volokh, the US Civil Rights Act "rejects" the idea that employees should just resign when their beliefs come into conflict with their responsibilities, and has often been used to protect Christians: a 2012 settlement, for example, when the EEOC represented a Jehovah's Witness fired for refusing to raise the American flag , which violated his religious views.
As to the Christian Bakers case I am inclined to agree that would be equivalent . Is the court saying that the bakers can be penalized because they are a business rather than employees ? I am not a lawyer and am therefore unqualified to address that difference ...
The financial "win" could be negligible since Star Transport went out of business earlier this year. Wonder who's financially responsible for the judgement awarded? Evidently Star entered a partnership agreement with Swift (of Arizona) to manage the resources in 2014, but ended up closing shop in 2015.
Sounds like that is a question for the lawyers and accountants . The injured parties would then be the other employees in that eventuality . I wonder if they can sue the 2 muslims ?
Anti-Muslim threads are usually among the most popular on Newstalkers. Other topics can barely get a pulse, but there is always a line ready to bash Muslims. That's too bad.
I guess John is a teetotaler ...
Maybe if less of them acted like medieval barbarians, there would be less to complain about?
The company deserved to lose, if for no other reason, out of sheer stupidity. There's nothing here that shows the trucking company only delivers beer and the company conceded that drivers could (and often did) switch assignments. That concession blew the case. The law requires "reasonable" accommodation for religion and the company could have (by its own admission) reasonably accommodated the drivers by simply switching delivery assignments to one that didn't include alcohol. If the company only delivered beer, then the result would be different because religious beliefs (prohibiting the transport of alcohol) could not be reasonably accommodated without imposing an undue hardship on the company (which is the standard stated in the article). It looks to me like the company made no effort whatsoever to comply with the law and, in fact, fired the drivers "because" they were Muslims.
If in fact that is the law or custom, and if the company delivers other goods besides alcoholic beverages, that is the perfect answer to this situation. There are insufficient facts for us to make a judgment on this issue.
No need to fear Sharia here! Everything is awesome!