MI - Muslim flight attendant suspended for refusing to serve alcohol, 25 Aug 2015

Hejlena

Former Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
1,777
Reaction score
21
I apologize if I sound heated. It's not meant to be directed at anyone. Except you, Kevininto-I just get so saddened to hear some of the things that get said around me just because I'm a white American (again-not you guys). I hear the word "them" so often when discussing Muslims or Somali or any other group and I think-my God-don't you people understand that there are crappy unethical individual Muslims Just like there are crappy unethical individual Americans? The hatred in the eyes of some people when I am walking downtown with a Somali co-worker is downright frightening. And it's stupid. And ignorant. And good people perpetuate it.
 

Montjoy

Inactive
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
5,230
Reaction score
40
I didn't "misrepresnet" a news article. Here is an exact quote from the article (don't know why the link doesn't work)



Note that the claim that they were threatened with replacement by "white staff" was uncorroborated and IMO a fabrication by the complainants.

Well, check out the actual legal decision that Hejlena provided --

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2013/2013hrto2009/2013hrto2009.html

The Sun is a very poor and slanted tabloid. Being ordered to eat pork was only a part of the case. What's more, they were told eat pork for a dish that was not even served in the restaurant -- so they weren't testing their cooking. It was clearly done punitively.
 

Hejlena

Former Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
1,777
Reaction score
21
I didn't "misrepresnet" a news article. Here is an exact quote from the article (don't know why the link doesn't work)



Note that the claim that they were threatened with replacement by "white staff" was uncorroborated and IMO a fabrication by the complainants.


It was not uncorroborated-it was witnessed by three Bengali employees and denied by Mrs B. And the legal brief is full of her ugly harassment of these men. You may think it's a fabrication but thankfully it's the Human Rights court that matters-and they believed these men.
 

K_Z

Verified Anesthetist
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,463
JMO if some group often requires a lot of religious exemptions that the employers or co-workers find unreasonable or troublesome, silent discrimination in the recruitment process is going to be a real concern. Even those workers from those groups who would be willing to do anything and everything to get a job may find it more difficult to get hired if the employers are afraid of having to deal with refusals, complaints, and lawsuits.

Exactly! And while I generally side with employers on these issues, I feel just awful contemplating the conflict and discrimination that a potential employee with "reasonable" requests for accommodation might encounter.

For example, in many work environments, a religious headscarf is no big deal and easily accommodated. In some environments, however, the headscarf is a hazard.

But I would genuinely feel bad that a person with a sincerely held "headscarf choice" might feel they have to abandon their headscarf to get employment in a "no big deal" environment, and be treated fairly. (To avoid discrimination, both overt and subtle.)

There are real issues that employers face with "will not do" lists, that should, IMO, take precedence over an individual's "right" to be in the job. And there are "reasonable" accommodations that should not shut some out of jobs because they choose to wear a visible sign of their faith.

For example, I think any woman who chooses to wear a full face niqab, on some level has to accept that her career/ job choices (in the U.S. at least) are extremely limited.

But as another example, a severely disabled person also has extremely limited job and career choices-- but not necessarily by their own choice.
 

Hejlena

Former Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
1,777
Reaction score
21
Exactly! And while I generally side with employers on these issues, I feel just awful contemplating the conflict and discrimination that a potential employee with "reasonable" requests for accommodation might encounter.

For example, in many work environments, a religious headscarf is no big deal and easily accommodated. In some environments, however, the headscarf is a hazard.

But I would genuinely feel bad that a person with a sincerely held "headscarf choice" might feel they have to abandon their headscarf to get employment in a "no big deal" environment, and be treated fairly. (To avoid discrimination, both overt and subtle.)

There are real issues that employers face with "will not do" lists, that should, IMO, take precedence over an individual's "right" to be in the job. And there are "reasonable" accommodations that should not shut some out of jobs because they choose to wear a visible sign of their faith.

For example, I think any woman who chooses to wear a full face niqab, on some level has to accept that her career/ job choices (in the U.S. at least) are extremely limited.

But as another example, a severely disabled person also has extremely limited job and career choices-- but not necessarily by their own choice.

But American people make unreasonable requests and file frivolous lawsuits against their employers all the time. That doesn't affect the way I view my own rights and responsibilities at all, and I doubt that any of my employers have given the grifters a second thought when hiring me. Why would it be different for a Muslim?
 

JLSChook

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
197
What if your son or daughter went to work in some other country where some crappy dispicable people raped them or tortured them on a daily basis and said "it is our religious right to do this. If she doesn't like it she can go home." But it wasn't their religious right to do that, it was just some dispicable people's interpretation of their "right" because it allowed them to feel okay being crappy to Americans. And what if she couldn't go home because there was no home to go to. And what if the rest of these dispicable men's country just said, "well, you came here, so you deserve it.

Yeah because rape and torture are the exact same thing as serving a glass of wine/beer. :facepalm:
ETA---If you want to do some research,look up how women who are raped are PUNISHED in the Muslim culture.
 

Hejlena

Former Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
1,777
Reaction score
21
Yeah because rape and torture are the exact same thing as serving a glass of wine/beer. :facepalm:
ETA---If you want to do some research,look up how women who are raped are PUNISHED in the Muslim culture.

In some fundamentalist factions of the Muslim religion.
 

gitana1

Verified Attorney
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
28,441
Reaction score
216,271
[video=cnn;us/2015/09/06/muslim-flight-attendant-expressjet-no-alcohol-valencia-pkg-nr.cnn]http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html[/video]






http://www.ibtimes.com/muslim-fligh...ended-expressjet-after-refusing-serve-2084972





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ded-refusing-serve-alcohol.html#ixzz3l0ytYbMO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


One of the videos (below) online further explains that on small flights of less than 50 passengers, alcoholic beverage service has to be suspended because only one flight attendant is scheduled, and the pilot cannot leave the cockpit to substitute for her serving. So some of the issue is that paying passengers are inconvenienced/ denied an advertised service, due to her religious beliefs. And then there are potential scheduling difficulties, for example, if 2 Muslim flight attendants were scheduled for the same flight, again, service would have to be suspended to paying passengers.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/flight-attendant-i-was-suspended-for-religious-beliefs/vi-AAe0MAj

What do posters think? Is the airline right to suspend the flight attendant? Does the flight attendant have a right to accommodations, even at the inconvenience of paying passengers?

What accommodations for religious beliefs are "reasonable"? Is there a point in which some work environments cannot accommodate all religious beliefs?

This is ridiculous. She needs to be fired. Oh and is liberty counsel going to rush to her defense now? With all that "sincerely held belief" nonsense?

I'm sick of this. If your religion is that restrictive then you need to choose a career that support your beliefs. Or retreat to study of religious texts or something.

She is not asking to be able to not kill someone. I can understand, for example, a person with certain religious beliefs who works at a medical facility saying they cannot assist with euthanasia or ending life support of a pregnant woman or with an abortion. Because those are significant things that are in direct violation of almost all monotheistic religious texts. But I can't bake a cake or issue a marriage license or serve someone a drink? Get out of here. Nonsense.
 

K_Z

Verified Anesthetist
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,463
This is ridiculous. She needs to be fired. Oh and is liberty counsel going to rush to her defense now? With all that "sincerely held belief" nonsense?

I'm sick of this. If your religion is that restrictive then you need to choose a career that support your beliefs. Or retreat to study of religious texts or something.

She is not asking to be able to not kill someone. I can understand, for example, a person with certain religious beliefs who works at a medical facility saying they cannot assist with euthanasia or ending life support of a pregnant woman or with an abortion. Because those are significant things that are in direct violation of almost all monotheistic religious texts. But I can't bake a cake or issue a marriage license or serve someone a drink? Get out of here. Nonsense.

I was hoping you would stop by and weigh in on this debate, Gitana! :seeya:
 

K_Z

Verified Anesthetist
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,463
Gitana, would you consider posting about "reasonable" accommodations?

How does the law define "reasonable"?
 

Donjeta

Adji Desir, missing from Florida
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
19,248
Reaction score
417
This is ridiculous. She needs to be fired. Oh and is liberty counsel going to rush to her defense now? With all that "sincerely held belief" nonsense?

I'm sick of this. If your religion is that restrictive then you need to choose a career that support your beliefs. Or retreat to study of religious texts or something.

She is not asking to be able to not kill someone. I can understand, for example, a person with certain religious beliefs who works at a medical facility saying they cannot assist with euthanasia or ending life support of a pregnant woman or with an abortion. Because those are significant things that are in direct violation of almost all monotheistic religious texts. But I can't bake a cake or issue a marriage license or serve someone a drink? Get out of here. Nonsense.

If alcohol is a religious taboo it seems to me that there are plenty of career choices that don't require serving anybody alcoholic beverages... I've never held a job in which serving alcoholic drinks was required even once.
 

ATasteOfHoney

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
5,882
Reaction score
96
I wonder how the States that are "at will" will play into this larger debate?

And on a more personal note, I'd be danged pissy if I had to do the task of two people just because my fellow co-worker couldn't perform her part of the task due to "religious beliefs".

Additional thought: if I suddenly became a devout Baptist, I'd probably decide to give up my job "on the pole"! Lol!
 

sonjay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,608
Reaction score
114
I think legally it comes down to the "sincere" need for accomodation. I mean, marriage license chick can say it's against her religion to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples till the cows come home, but it's not against her religion. It's her *interpretation* of her religion,

snipped for focus

This is part of what bothers me about these cases and the existing legal framework. When an employer and employee can't agree on what is a "reasonable accommodation" for the employee's "sincerely held" religious belief, we turn to the courts, and we ask some judge to determine a. whether something is a valid and sincerely held religious belief and b. what is a reasonable accommodation for it.

I for one would rather not see government involved in determining what is or is not a sincerely held religious belief, and then either disallowing accommodation for it (thereby invalidating legally the employee's religious belief) or forcing the employer to accommodate it (thereby imposing the employee's religious belief onto the employer's place of business).

I don't like the government deciding what things are and what things aren't sincerely held religious beliefs.

Whether your religion involves using peyote, praying for 15 minutes every hour, wearing a Mickey Mouse beanie, not working on certain days of the week, not signing your name to legal documents, tattooing satanic symbols on your face, or any other practice, I think that's your business and no one else's. Period. As long as you're not harming anyone else, you should absolutely be free to practice whatever religion you wish and to believe any interpretation of that religion that you wish.

I don't believe, however, that you should have the power to impose those beliefs onto other people.

And it bothers me greatly that the government has the power to decide what is or is not a legally acceptable religious belief. Under this system, some people enjoy the government-granted power to impose their beliefs on others, and some people don't. That really bothers me.

IMO, your religious belief is yours to decide. No one else's. Also IMO, the duties of any particular job are the employer's to decide. As long as your religious beliefs harm no one else, you should be free to practice your religious customs, period. And as long as the job duties defined by an employer harm no one else, the employer should be free to define the job however he wants to, period. If your religious beliefs are incompatible with a particular job, you don't take that job. You are free to go find a job that is compatible with your beliefs.
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,016
....I mentioned before that we have had a handful of CRNA applicants to our company who arrive to the interview with a substantial "will not do" list. Fortunately, we have (so far) always been appraised of these "will not do" lists before hiring, and have been able to communicate that in our small hospitals, we cannot accommodate the "will not do" situations. Our staffing is simply too tight to have another qualified staff member around 24/7 to substitute for whatever it is that they "will not do"....

bbm <snipped for focus>

I don't want to go too far off topic here am curious about ^CRNA applicants' WND lists.
Sample job description: http://www.aana.com/resources2/professionalpractice/Pages/Position-Description-for-a-CRNA.aspx

What is on WND lists? I can see potential issue w, say, abortions. But what else? Will not sedate patients of opposite sex?

TIA.
 

sonjay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,608
Reaction score
114
bbm <snipped for focus>

I don't want to go too far off topic here am curious about ^CRNA applicants' WND lists.
Sample job description: http://www.aana.com/resources2/professionalpractice/Pages/Position-Description-for-a-CRNA.aspx

What is on WND lists? I can see potential issue w, say, abortions. But what else? Will not sedate patients of opposite sex?

TIA.

Refusal to receive vaccinations. This can put everyone in the hospital at risk, and especially the most vulnerable patients.

Insisting on wearing not just a hijab, or head scarf, but a full headpiece with only the eyes showing. For children, in particular, being able to see the person's face is important. For everyone, adults and children alike, being able to positively identify the person is important -- especially in a neonatal setting, with the security that's needed.

Refusal not merely to sedate a person of the opposite sex, but to touch the person at all. Or maybe they'll only provide care to a person of the opposite sex if another healthcare worker is present. Or maybe they'll provide some care, but not assist with toileting, or give a sponge bath.

Maybe they won't provide care to any patient they consider "unclean."

Maybe a dietary worker won't deliver meals that contain pork products.

Hoo boy.... the more I think about it, the more I'm agin this whole "accommodation" thing. Do your job, or find another one.
 

sonjay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,608
Reaction score
114
Title VII protects all aspects of religious observance, practice, and belief, and defines religion very broadly to include not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or may seem illogical or unreasonable to others.

Religious practices may be based on theistic beliefs or non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right or wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. Religious observances or practices include, for example, attending worship services, praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious expression, or refraining from certain activities. Moreover, an employee's belief or practice can be "religious" under Title VII even if it is not followed by others in the same religious sect, denomination, or congregation, or even if the employee is unaffiliated with a formal religious organization.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/qa_religious_garb_grooming.cfm
 

K_Z

Verified Anesthetist
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,463
bbm <snipped for focus>

I don't want to go too far off topic here am curious about ^CRNA applicants' WND lists.
Sample job description: http://www.aana.com/resources2/professionalpractice/Pages/Position-Description-for-a-CRNA.aspx

What is on WND lists? I can see potential issue w, say, abortions. But what else? Will not sedate patients of opposite sex?

TIA.

I won&#8217;t go too far off topic either, but will answer. Keep in mind this list involves providers who claim adherence to many different faiths&#8212;and also keep in mind that we are not talking about a lot of providers, just a few that are usually outliers within their profession who are specifically seeking an environment where they can refuse these kind of cases. (Including scrub techs, nurses, and aides in this group, as well.)

For example, in a fairly rural and underserved area, we have an OB-GYN husband/ wife team who will not prescribe any pharmacological, barrier, or surgical birth control, or do pre-menopausal hysterectomies, etc. (And they don&#8217;t have a sign up in the clinic or anything, so often patients don&#8217;t know until they get into the exam room.) We also have nurse practitioners and family docs who will not prescribe birth control. As another example, we&#8217;ve now had a number of women who had insurance pre-approval for tubal ligations while pregnant, and ended up having unplanned c/sections&#8212;those docs will not do the tubal during the c/section, forcing the patient to have another surgical procedure at another time with another provider, and sometimes in another location. General surgery will not come in just to do the tubal if OB-GYN is doing the c/section. (It gets very complicated-- they might be covering several hospitals, etc.)

Other surgeries and procedures that I&#8217;ve encountered from providers with &#8220;will not do&#8221; lists: any surgeries involving any aspect of birth control (tubal interruption, tubal ligation), or surgeries which might impact future fertility, surgeries to RESTORE fertility after tubal ligation, GYN surgeries that remove ovaries or ovarian tissue, pre-menopausal hysterectomies or uterine fibroid tumors, emergency surgeries for spontaneous abortions (miscarriages), such as D & C, tubal ectopic pregnancies, procedures involving implanted human tissue (such as sterilized cadaver bone, cornea, and other tissue and organ transplants), administration of blood products, surgeries involving implanted pig derivatives (skin grafts and heart valves, and certain medications), providers who do not provide labor pain relief, such as epidurals (not because of lack of training, but because of their beliefs that pain relief in labor is not &#8220;biblical&#8221;), refusal to participate in/ or perform vasectomies, etc.

It's extremely difficult to take on providers with these kind of "will not do" situations, particularly in small rural and community hospitals. How do yu do the schedule? It's not practical or feasible to double up on call for providers (or have to have a back up on call person). There might be only one CRNA assigned to a rural hospital for a stretch of several days, including overnight and on call-- and if that person won't do certain procedures, it's a real problem. Same if it's a surgeon, or a scrub tech.

It's much different if, for example, the hospital is Catholic. Then none of the birth control type procedures are ever done there, and patients know that from the outset. It's a problem when you have to be a detective to figure out which providers have objections against which things, and make sure they're not on the schedule for certain cases, or on certain days.
 

BeginnersLuck

New Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
4,003
Reaction score
35
The Muslim religion is much more strict than the majority of other religions in the US. For instance, women are not even suppose to work along side of men. Do all Muslims that live in the US adhere to everyone of these principles? Of course not. Nor, do all members of other faiths adhere to all the principles of the religion of their choice.

This is why, in the workplace in a diverse society we cannot accommodate everyone's beliefs or demands, no matter what religion they associate themselves with.

Yesterday on the "clerk" thread, I presented a hypothetical situation in which a company had 300 employees who all held different religious based beliefs. Some of those beliefs contradicting others. I was attempting to illustrate the bigger picture of what could happen if said company attempted to make exceptions for each individual. Or, if said company had to deal with many lawsuits filed by individuals wanting exclusions from performing their job duties based on their religion.

Meeting the demands of so many in a diverse society could significantly impact production, profits and lead to bankruptcy or a company packing up and moving elsewhere.

I think employees should have to sign a contract which lists a complete job description and agree that they are willing to perform every aspect of the job when they are hired. If at anytime, they refuse to perform their job duties for any reason other than disability, the company has the right to terminate their employment.

A disability is not a choice, but religious affiliation is in this country as well as the choice of how strictly one is going to adhere to their religion is a choice.

If a person holds a job and then makes the "choice" to change religions and will no longer perform their job duties, then they would clearly need to resign unless the company chooses to keep the employee and make reasonable accommodations for the employee.

The gap here though, where I think the reasonable accommodations would still become a legal factor, is if a company changes policy after the employee is hired. Say for instance, this airline didn't serve alcohol and now does.

In the case of the clerk and others that take a constitutional oath to adhere to the laws of our country, IMO it shouldn't matter whether those laws are past or present. They legally should have to abide by the law over their religious convictions.
 

Woodland

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,833
[video=cnn;us/2015/09/06/muslim-flight-attendant-expressjet-no-alcohol-valencia-pkg-nr.cnn]http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html[/video]






http://www.ibtimes.com/muslim-fligh...ended-expressjet-after-refusing-serve-2084972





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ded-refusing-serve-alcohol.html#ixzz3l0ytYbMO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


One of the videos (below) online further explains that on small flights of less than 50 passengers, alcoholic beverage service has to be suspended because only one flight attendant is scheduled, and the pilot cannot leave the cockpit to substitute for her serving. So some of the issue is that paying passengers are inconvenienced/ denied an advertised service, due to her religious beliefs. And then there are potential scheduling difficulties, for example, if 2 Muslim flight attendants were scheduled for the same flight, again, service would have to be suspended to paying passengers.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/flight-attendant-i-was-suspended-for-religious-beliefs/vi-AAe0MAj

What do posters think? Is the airline right to suspend the flight attendant? Does the flight attendant have a right to accommodations, even at the inconvenience of paying passengers?

What accommodations for religious beliefs are "reasonable"? Is there a point in which some work environments cannot accommodate all religious beliefs?

Starts working for the airline 3 years ago. Converts to Islam two years ago. Only realizes one year ago that serving alcohol is prohibited under her new faith.

I don't think so. The whole alcohol thingy would have come up at the time of conversion - early on. I smell a set-up for the cameras, controversy and religious point fwiw. Money is likely a distant fourth. Her lawyers background would be of interest imo. It's possible she is being used and doesn't realize it.

This case making any inroads in American way of conducting business would be a long lasting problem - all the reasons given in the many posts in between are very valid. She needs to be turfed and given no sympathy or accommodation. Jmo.
 

flourish

Now With 30% More Emo
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
6,394
Reaction score
6,727
I won’t go too far off topic either, but will answer. Keep in mind this list involves providers who claim adherence to many different faiths—and also keep in mind that we are not talking about a lot of providers, just a few that are usually outliers within their profession who are specifically seeking an environment where they can refuse these kind of cases. (Including scrub techs, nurses, and aides in this group, as well.)

For example, in a fairly rural and underserved area, we have an OB-GYN husband/ wife team who will not prescribe any pharmacological, barrier, or surgical birth control, or do pre-menopausal hysterectomies, etc. (And they don’t have a sign up in the clinic or anything, so often patients don’t know until they get into the exam room.) We also have nurse practitioners and family docs who will not prescribe birth control. As another example, we’ve now had a number of women who had insurance pre-approval for tubal ligations while pregnant, and ended up having unplanned c/sections—those docs will not do the tubal during the c/section, forcing the patient to have another surgical procedure at another time with another provider, and sometimes in another location. General surgery will not come in just to do the tubal if OB-GYN is doing the c/section. (It gets very complicated-- they might be covering several hospitals, etc.)

Other surgeries and procedures that I’ve encountered from providers with “will not do” lists: any surgeries involving any aspect of birth control (tubal interruption, tubal ligation), or surgeries which might impact future fertility, surgeries to RESTORE fertility after tubal ligation, GYN surgeries that remove ovaries or ovarian tissue, pre-menopausal hysterectomies or uterine fibroid tumors, emergency surgeries for spontaneous abortions (miscarriages), such as D & C, tubal ectopic pregnancies, procedures involving implanted human tissue (such as sterilized cadaver bone, cornea, and other tissue and organ transplants), administration of blood products, surgeries involving implanted pig derivatives (skin grafts and heart valves, and certain medications), providers who do not provide labor pain relief, such as epidurals (not because of lack of training, but because of their beliefs that pain relief in labor is not “biblical”), refusal to participate in/ or perform vasectomies, etc.

It's extremely difficult to take on providers with these kind of "will not do" situations, particularly in small rural and community hospitals. How do yu do the schedule? It's not practical or feasible to double up on call for providers (or have to have a back up on call person). There might be only one CRNA assigned to a rural hospital for a stretch of several days, including overnight and on call-- and if that person won't do certain procedures, it's a real problem. Same if it's a surgeon, or a scrub tech.

It's much different if, for example, the hospital is Catholic. Then none of the birth control type procedures are ever done there, and patients know that from the outset. It's a problem when you have to be a detective to figure out which providers have objections against which things, and make sure they're not on the schedule for certain cases, or on certain days.

So absurd. I wonder how many of these people are just attention-seeking zealots. Ridiculous. If you won't do the work, don't go into that line of work!!!

I'm going to get a job at a strip club hen freak out about being expected to take my clothes off. Whatever!
 
Top