it didn't wear one when it applied for the job, so it doesn't need to wear one ON the job...
Posted on 07/12/2014 11:29:10 AM PDT by lowbridge
An Alabama nursing home is being sued after it allegedly refused to allow a Muslim worker to wear a hijab on the job, according to a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last week.
Shadescrest Health Care Center hired Tracy Martin as a certified nursing assistant in August 2012, according to the lawsuit. Martin reportedly wore the hijab on Aug. 9 and was told to “remove the head covering or be subject to termination,” according to the government'spress release published Monday. Martin filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC and was fired weeks after Shadescrest received notice of the complaint.
The EEOC charges that Martin was fired “in retaliation” to her discrimination complaint and for her attempt to exercise her religious rights, the government alleges.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcknights.com ...
“Strangely, liberals who would deny the religious freedom of employers over free contraceptives would support the religious freedom of workers to wear a hockey mask.”
Excellent point, right on the money!
Don’t hire the death-cultists to begin with. Helpless people don’t need to see someone who believes all ‘infidels’ should die as their ‘caretaker’. That’s mental cruelty. I swear, what will it take for people to realize that TREATING Muslims like civilized people does NOT make them civilized. Islam is a toxic ideology and no one who subscribes to it can be trusted.
it didn't wear one when it applied for the job, so it doesn't need to wear one ON the job...
wearing that grab is not a requirement of their religion. It may be the case if they go to the mosque or in their country which stones women for less. But this is the USA!!
+1
I guess this means that ny black males who work there can wear hoodies, and any skinheads can wear KKK hoods?
So we’re for religious freedom, just not for everybody.
Nurses have uniforms. Period. Those are the conditions of this job, take it or leave it. There should be some lawyer who can make that case in a courtroom. The elderly have a hard enough time as is, some with chronic aches and pains, some have lost all important family members. They may not want their nurse concealing her face all day. What? am I so germy and contagious that she needs such high level protection? Speak up, employers, don’t be so quick to submit.
If the clients ain’t happy, she gotta go.
Apparently they didn’t know she was a muslim when they hired her.
Hello, this is America. Wear you bags in the sand-country. Here we speak English and women go free. Amazing concept.
Your tax dollars at work, defending the poor and downtrodden.
Residents must have thought she was a moving garbage bag and littered the floor throwing things at it.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
With the exception of the federal entities indicated in the Constitution's Clauses 16 & 17 of Section 8 of Article I as examples, entities under the exclusive legislative control of Congress, and regardless what FDR's misguided activist justices wanted everybody to believe about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers when it decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce, labor or employment issues. The states uniquely have the 10th Amendment-protected power to regulate such issues.
In fact, Justice John Marshall had officially clarifed that Congress has no constitutional authority to stick its big nose into any aspect of intrastate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
But the EEOC has actually got more constitutional problems than exercising constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers. More specifically, the Founding States had made the Constitution’s Sections 1-3 of Article I to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in non-elected federal bureaucrats like those running the EEOC and the EPA. So Congress has a monopoly on federal legislative / regulatory powers whether it wants it or not. And by delegating legislative powers to non-elected third parties, Congress is wrongly protecting federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 mentioned above imo.
So what the EEOC needs to start doing ASAP in order to preserve its very existence is the following. The EEOC needs to work with Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states, the amendment not only repealing Section 1 of Article I so that Congress can delegate legislative / regulatory powers to non-elected bureaucrats, but the amendment also needs to have a provision delegating to Congress the specific power to regulate intrastate equal employment opportunity issues since Congress never had such powers.
And if the states choose to ratify the EEOC’s amendment then Congress will have the power not only to address equal employment opportunity issues, but Congress will be able to delegate such powers to non-elected bureaucrats like those running constitutional undefined “independent federal regulatory agencies” like the EEOC and EPA, and the EEOC will be a hero.
Kind of an unusual name for a muslam,Tracy. Martin.
Looking for a big settlement I bet.
Good luck finding your next job woman.
stop hiring muslims. anyone you possibly think will give you trouble.
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.