Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Revelation 911
OSHA,EEOC,EPA,DEC,N.O.W.,A.A.R.P.,NAACP and every other alphabet organization might argue the point.

Then those organizations (most of which have nothing to do with this issue) are wrong.

Her employers told her not to bring pork on the premises.

She did so after being so ordered.

She was fired.

If I was on jury trying this case, that would be the end of the story. Too bad for her.

37 posted on 08/05/2004 7:48:40 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows ("Nothing goes together like spliffs and uzis." --Physicist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: Slings and Arrows
If I was on jury trying this case, that would be the end of the story. Too bad for her.

which sucks for her since youd be ignoring case law by acting so capriciously (no pimp slap meant)

The owner has made what we presume was a publicly offered position of employment conditional upon their religious tenets.

________________________________

from the EEOC website

Religious Discrimination Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Under Title VII:

Employers may not treat employees or applicants less - or more - favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.

Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment.

Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers and modifying workplace practices, policies and/or procedures are examples of how an employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs.

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. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.

Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression if employees are permitted to engage in other personal expression at work, unless the religious expression would impose an unde hardship on the employer. Therefore, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.

Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

now it may be his place - but its certainly not his rules

39 posted on 08/05/2004 8:45:27 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson