Posted on 07/17/2010 2:41:57 PM PDT by NYer
A former bus driver has sued the Capital Area Rural Transportation System, charging that the nine-county transit service discriminated against him based on his religion when he was fired for refusing to drive women to a Planned Parenthood clinic in January.
Edwin Graning, who was hired as a driver on April 1, 2009, was "concerned that he might be transporting a client to undergo an abortion" when he was assigned to take two women to Planned Parenthood, according to his lawsuit, filed this week in U.S. District Court in Austin.
Graning is seeking reinstatement, back pay and undisclosed damages for pain, suffering and emotion distress. He is represented by lawyers from the American Center for Law & Justice, founded by evangelical Christian leader Pat Robertson.
Joanna Salinas, an Austin lawyer who represents the Capital Area Rural Transportation System, said, "CARTS denies that it discriminated against Mr. Graning because of his religion, and we are looking forward to responding to the lawsuit in court."
The system, operated under an agreement among participating counties, offers bus service on fixed routes and through requested pickup for residents in the nonurban areas of Travis and Williamson counties and in all of Bastrop, Burnet, Blanco, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays and Lee counties.
After he was dispatched to take the women to Planned Parenthood in January, Graning called his supervisor "and told her that, in good conscience, he could not take someone to have an abortion," his lawsuit said. The women's names, their location and the clinic location were not included in the lawsuit. Planned Parenthood also provides health care services unrelated to abortion.
Graning, a Kyle resident, is "an ordained Christian minister who is opposed to abortion," the lawsuit said.
His supervisor, who is not named, responded by saying, "Then you are resigning," the suit said.
Graning denied he was resigning and was later told to drive his bus back to the yard and then was fired, the lawsuit said.
Graning's suit claims violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
One of Graning's lawyers, Thomas S. Brandon Jr. of Fort Worth, said the law requires the transportation system to make accommodate Graning's religious beliefs unless it causes a "substantial financial hardship."
"We understand that if someone is using a public service \u2026 they are entitled to go wherever without regard to a distinction on whether it is morally right or not," Brandon said. "But Mr. Graning as a driver had a strong religious conviction about abortion."
Julius "Jack" Getman , a labor law professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said the case could hinge on whether Graning had made it clear ahead of time that his religious views would prevent him from taking someone to an abortion.
"They (CARTS) may say he was not reasonable because 'he sprung it on us and it is insubordination,'\u2009" Getman said. "They may be able to say that's required in his job."
>> they can only refuse service if they know that they are facilitating a crime.
That’s a good point except abortion is the legal killing of unborn humans - therefore, it is not a crime. It wouldn’t surprise me if denying someone transportation to an abortion clinic could be considered criminal.
From the complacent perspective, this is a no-win situation for the bus driver. I hope he finds a way to make the situation right. I’m sure there are plenty of legitimate opportunities ahead for him.
>> Our business? You and who else, boss?
It’s none of your damn business. Get lost - you’re fired!
Do yourself a favor and read again the post in question.
Not the best choice for an analogy. However, if a person’s religion is very clear about *a* thing, it does create a better possibility for a positive outcome in court. But the judge has to determine how serious that religion, or church is on the subject. And that is the zinger.
Whereas many churches are very firm about abortion, and make no effort to conceal the fact, many are still relatively quiet on the issue of indirect facilitation of abortion, and they shouldn’t be.
When an employed member of their congregation is asked by their employer to do something that goes against church principles, most of the time it is because employers don’t know what those principles are.
The employee is caught between his beliefs and his employer. So his chances are much better if he can say “we” don’t want to do this, not just “I”. Then, if his employer demands he do it anyway, he is knowingly infringing on his employees religious liberty.
While this may seem subtle, it matters in court. So while this driver will likely lose, he and his church, and neighboring churches of a similar bent, may exert a lot more influence in the future, at least helping their parishioners to avoid conflicts like this in the first place.
It seems like it was a very good analogy since all of the rest of your post supports it in no uncertain terms.
Maybe some places, but not as I’ve been hearing.
You're not. Meet one Atheist, you've met 'em all.
Am I banned, boss?
Dweeb.
And that is fine. He shouldn't be forced to act against his beliefs, and he wasn't. He effectively quit on the spot.
Planned Parenthood also provides health care services unrelated to abortion.
And that is not fine. How the driver could be sure that his passengers are going there for an abortion? If they are going to see a doctor, that doctor is certainly qualified to deal with all kinds of related problems, and is probably good enough to deal with common GP issues. It would be clearly wrong for the bus driver to prevent patients from seeing a doctor to treat something - or just to monitor a normal pregnancy, if PP is the most convenient place to do it. From the description, this looks like a rural area, so it may well be that there aren't too many medical specialists to choose from.
The bus driver is lucky that *he* isn't yet sued by his passengers. Not being a doctor and not seeing a patient he made a medical decision (to not allow the patient to see their doctor on time) and enforced this decision. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that this is seriously wrong. Stand between the patient and her doctor, and if there is a complication caused by your meddling you are done for.
Besides, IMO the battle for the life of a not yet born person is waged not at the door of a clinic. It is waged in the mind of a person who currently carries the child. If that battle is lost and there is a will to kill, there will be a way.
While I absolutely hate abortion, I can’t condone this guy’s actions any more than I can of the muslim cab drivers who won’t transport blind people and their dogs. He has a job to do and it is not up to him to judge who rides and who doesn’t.
The larger issue is the relationship of the Christian driver and God. By remaining in fellowship with God, the driver may have refused to aid and abet the murder of a fellow man and remained in fellowship, also meriting rewards at the bema seat judgment.
If the woman wanted to murder her baby by worldly standards, and there are many available mechanisms, she also did not have to attempt to drag in other people into her sins.
She is also guilty of intruding her religious beliefs upon others when she seeks to require another person to drive her to a destination with intent to murder, while opposing and failing the respect the religious beliefs of that driver.
Since the worldly system opposes God and His Plan, it isn’t surprising that not only will it separate itself from God, but in it’s degenerate condition seeks to attack God and His Plan and anybody associated with it.
That will change.
Yeah, they pretty much do.
Say you are a beer vendor and your route requires you to service a gay bar, do you?
If not, you should be fired for non performance of your job, just as this guy was.
I really don’t have a problem with your point that business should have the right to fire for whatever reason. That right was obviously exercised in this case against the bus driver that hoped to save a life. I’m certainly not going to defend those running the company.
The bus driver is a hero. Sometimes it’s convenient for some to piss on heroes - my point.
>> He has a job to do and it is not up to him to judge who rides and who doesn’t.
Imagine if those on Hitler’s payroll decided to use their better judgment.
To start with, an Old Order Amish driver could not be licensed to drive in the first place, unless he rejected a major tenet of his religion, in which case he would not be seen as OO Amish. Nor is a bus company obliged to hire an OO Amish driver in the first place, or retain him if he refused to drive.
So a court would reject his religious grounds, which is a major point to my argument. Courts in past have been faced with individuals who claimed both a denomination, and that their denomination did not permit something; but the judge has rejected that argument, because nowhere does their denomination make this a prominent issue.
For example, a grocery store clerk who both claims to be Catholic, and refuses to handle pork, because in his mind, it is unclean for Catholics to touch pork.
However, if he could even bring his local parish Priest to court to assert that in that particular Catholic church, pork is rejected as an article of faith, the judge might be inclined to consider it. And if the judge could be persuaded that that particular Catholic church seriously rejected pork, even if the rest of the religion didn’t, it might still be enough for the judge to support his claim of unfair dismissal.
Or not.
Finally, in passing, I would like to add that the Amish are not monolithic. The Beachy Amish Mennonite order actually do drive cars and wear machine made clothing. And, I suppose, one of them could become a bus driver, but if he did, he would drive the bus and wear the bus driver uniform, if they had one.
Now that is weak. When you have to stretch the analogy that much further than its intent to negate it you have left the original point to die alone of abject neglect.
No, your analogy was irrational. There would be no complaint for religious reasons from an Amish driver, period. Either they couldn’t drive and follow their sect, or they could drive and wear the uniform. In either case, there is no religious objection. Thus, bad analogy.
If I was to pick an analogy, which currently is in contention in Britain, it would be Muslims who are hired by groceries, then refuse to handle either pork or liquor as part of their job. But it goes a lot further than that. Here is a .pdf of all the ins and outs just for Muslim employees and hiring in Britain.
http://www.mcb.org.uk/faith/approved.pdf
The Muslim analogy carries the exact same drawbacks. They couldn’t apply for the job if it required them to violate tenets of their faith. It is highly neurotic to apply literal standards to an analogy you know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.