Ok, I'm kinda torn by this. One the one hand, I think the woman should be able to eat whatever she wants, but on the other hand, I think that if a company is mostly islamic and they can become unclean just by touching her left overs that she should leave her bacon at home.
But then again, What if they wanted her to wear a Burka at work?
Then again, what if she was working at a Kosher deli and brought a ham sandwhich in?
I guess I think that unless she's rubbing bacon fat on her co-workers and the business is not religion-related, religion should be completely left out of the work place.
This woman should get her job back.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
If it'd be a written policy and she'd signed it at time of hiring...I'd say the company had a case.
Though, what she did WAS rude.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't see why it would matter unless someone were in the habit of stealing other people's lunches. Which is also "immoral".
One wonders if this lady perhaps isn't aware of the delicious panoply of meats that all arise from swine.
"Dad, those all come from the same animal!" "Yes, Lisa, a magical animal :drool:"
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, she should get her job back. There is no way the business can make an argument that what she eats impacts the day to day business of the company.
I expect that this little setback will probably gain her a nice little court settlement in her favor.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: If it'd be a written policy and she'd signed it at time of hiring...I'd say the company had a case.
Would such a contract be legally enforcable? I don't see it.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Presumeably being in the presence of this unclean meat or watching someone willfully and cheerfully engage in eating something Islam declares to be unfit raises hackles.
It would be like wearing Gay Pride colors in a predominately Catholic company. Not entirely illegal, but it would be one heck of a career limiting maneuver.
However, as it stands, the company is going to lose big on this one. If they felt so strongly about pork, they should have the policy in writing.
-Trevor
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
If someone paper-bagged feces for lunch and ate it in front of or around co-workers, could that be cause enough for a firing? This is basically being considered the same thing.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
As a condition of employment? Possibly - but I'm not particularly well versed in contract law.
As long as they didn't say why pork and pork-based products were prohibited, the written policy probably could stand.
-Trevor
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I'd say the smell, potential loss of customers and employees, and probably sickness would make a pretty good case against feces.
Stormy--might, I should've put in that qualifier. They MIGHT have a leg to stand on, if that were legal. But an unwritten policy? You can't fire someone for being rude.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
The only reason it is legal to ban smoking is due to the multiple laws on the books actually banning smoking.
I believe this woman has a pretty strong case, and any company that asked you to sign a waiver regarding what you may and may not eat on the basis of a religious belief, would likely be in violation of religious discrimination laws. If they asked you to ban all food, then fine. If the food caused a real danger to anyone, that would be fine.
But these guys have little to fall back on.
And, personally, I believe they were wrong to do it.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I'm not sure about Florida's laws regarding termination, but if the company had been a tad brighter, they would have come up with a pretext to justify removing her and avoid this mess.
-Trevor
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
This is ridiculous; it's a business not a church. She can eat whatever she wants. Even if they had a "policy" against it they told her from the beginning that they did not discriminate.... that and of course it's the law of the land not to anyway. This "policy" is wrong and most likely very illegal.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: if the company had been a tad brighter, they would have come up with a pretext to justify removing her and avoid this mess.
Scary... It seems to happen all too often. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Office politics exist for a reason.
-Trevor
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:I'd say the smell, potential loss of customers and employees, and probably sickness would make a pretty good case against feces.
There are people who have been known to eat feces and not be sick from it. Not on a regular basis, and they are almost always insane, but sanity is not the issue here. It is the disgust-factor, where pork would be equivalent to feces according to the "unclean" status.
quote:Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean.," Local 6 News reported. She was then fire for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report.
She was warned once, and then did it again. Both pizza and bacon have a distinct smell, and if it is considered unclean, there is plenty case to say it was making coworkers ill to see, smell, or be near it.
My point using feces stands.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I wish I could be fired for eating pork. The inevitable court settlement would be a much easier way to pay my tuition, that's for sure.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Bacon has a distinctive smell when it's cooking, but were these people walking up on her and taking the bread off her sandwich!
Dictating what people in your employ eat is a little much.
Was she only doing it to annoy them? Possibly. But, they can't fire her for being annoying.
The smell of seafood is very offensive to me. My mother is deathly allergic to it, and having viewed her nearly die from ingesting an egg roll that had shrimp in it when I was a little girl I have a strong aversion to seafood. It is as offensive to me as smelling feces is, maybe more so because Eru knows I've changed a lot of diapers in my day and I'd rather do that than go in a fish market.
so....if I have a business can I fire someone for going to Captain D's for lunch?
Do Jewish business owners have the right to fire people who don't eat kosher? I've eaten with many a Jewish person who didn't seem offended when I ate pork, they just didn't eat it themselves. That seems to me the sensible way to be about it.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I'm talking about the other people present--feces can cause those reactions in others regardless of religion.
Not the same with pork.
Look, I don't agree with what she did, but it isn't a terminating offense.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As repugnant as it is, I think Justa's analogy has merit.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Um, I'm not sure that the company is wrong on this one by law. I'll have to look it up, but I think that they have the right to make company policies that require all employees to respect the laws and practices of Islam that are in accordance with U.S. law.
Also, they didn't fire her for being Catholic or not being Muslim. As far as I know, there's no Catholic law that requires practitioners to eat pork for lunch, so they weren't voilating her religious rights, either.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:Do Jewish business owners have the right to fire people who don't eat kosher?
No, but they do have the right to require them to eat it outside of the premises.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
This particular case will probably come down to whether or not she was properly notified. And no, "Don't eat pork here again!" doesn't cut it. They need to have documented evidence that there was a written policy, and that she read it, and agreed to abide by it.
The idea makes me angry, because it whether or not it technically avoids infringing on her religious freedom it sure does feel like it's infringing on her personal liberties to be able to eat what she wants. However, I support employers rights' too - I are one.
I would say a Muslim or Jewish owner would have the right to make this rule, but that they would have to be clear unpon hiring so that the person knows up front.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:The idea makes me angry, because it whether or not it technically avoids infringing on her religious freedom it sure does feel like it's infringing on her personal liberties to be able to eat what she wants. However, I support employers rights' too - I are one.
She can eat what she wants, just not on company property. There's no infringement on her personal liberties at all.
As a Christian employer, isn't it important to you that your employees respect your religion? Would you want one of them to come to work wearing an upside-down cross or some other symbol of Satanism?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think I might fire the woman too if she's insisting on befouling my work place, which is how it's seen.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
No it isn't important that an employee respects your religion. Its important that they come in, on time, and produce the work you are paying them for. Plain and simple. Thats what you hired them for. Not to obey your religious convictions or restrictions. And before someone pops up and tries to be cute and say 'well, what about coming in drunk, high etc....' that comes in under non performance due to being inebriated, high.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
About the lady getting fired, perhaps it was a little extreme. I agree she should have gotten a written request to stop. If she continued, yeah, fire her.
But this reminds me of an idea someone I know once had after 9/11. Every plane should have a nice bucket of pig chittlins (sp?), fat, and whatever. If any muslim extremists try to take over the plane, throw the pig bits all over him. That way, if he dies he can't go to heaven without the cleansing rituals... I think. I might be operating under false information. But if it's true, Nyah Nyah nyah nyah nyah.
Pummel him with pork.
(I happen to never eat pig products. Kosher goooood.)
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
It's one thing if she was openly challenging her boss or if she was quietly eating in the lunch room.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
She WAS openly challenging her boss, by making her choice, even if she did it quietly. Assuming she understood the policy as well as they say she should have. I don't see how they can win a case if they didn't have a written down policy, though.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I feel bad for the poor pigs. Getting such a bad rap. They are actually very clean animals... when they are free ranging that is.
So the question is... why did port become an "unclean" meat to the ancients? Are pig meats more prone to food poisoning?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think, Bookwyrm, no one wanted her to follow their religions, just respect them. Could she have eaten the pork elsewhere?
Telp: Clean on the outside isn't clean on the inside. they don't really have pores, so in essence they are scavenging their own wastes because they can't excrete them very efficiently. Foul creatures, but adorable.
[ August 04, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
[ August 04, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:As a Christian employer, isn't it important to you that your employees respect your religion? Would you want one of them to come to work wearing an upside-down cross or some other symbol of Satanism?
I wouldn't like it but unless I stated that they could'nt up front I can't fire them for it. I don't get to dictate their jewelry choices. Unless I have a policy that states that jewelry can't be worn, ever. Like my mother has a policy at her office about piercings and noserings and such. But it's in the handbook you have to read and sign.
Now, we do make it clear that we are a Christian company, and no one who works for us has ever voiced a complaint about it. Wes has a Bible with him in his truck, and usually whatever study book he's reading. He wears one of his Grandfather's cross pins (his grandfather was a minister) on his hat. But we don't make people sign a statement of belief before we hire them, nor do we advertise ourselves as a Christian company.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I don't think she can legally be fired for eating pork, but I wonder if she can be fired for insubordination (seeing as how she had been warned before...)
Farmgirl
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: why did port become an "unclean" meat
I did? Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
O_O
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"There is no way the business can make an argument that what she eats impacts the day to day business of the company."
No, but her actions while in the business establisment could. Suppose she had instead said "You are all going to Hell." as greeting each morning, or decided that sacrificing a chicken was the proper way to start the business day. Creating an unpleasant atmosphere, being rude to coworkers does affect the business.
"What if they wanted her to wear a burka at work?"
What if your office wanted you to wear a suit and tie? What if McDonalds wanted you to wear their uniform to work? What if Disney decided that you had to wear a DonaldDuck costume? I'd prefer the burka (Okay, the DonaldDuck costume might be acceptable on cool days)
[ August 04, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:I'm talking about the other people present--feces can cause those reactions in others regardless of religion.
Not the same with pork.
Sure it is. I can think of foods that just the sight or smell can make me feel ill, even if I am not eating it. That isn't even based on religious faith, just personal opinion about taste. For someone whose personal opinion goes as far as deeming some foods unclean, I don't see how comparing it to someone eating feces in front of you is not the same.
I'm not talking just the gross factor, I'm talking about the actual visceral reaction to the thing being eaten on what is a very basic level. It's not just unclean in the manner that you probably shouldn't eat it. It is unclean in the manner that it is filthy and should not be eaten.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
at first thought I sided with her...but on second thought I think I will gave to go with the company
Regardless of religion, if they feel that pork is disgusting, then she should not eat it. Of course they should make it a written policy, and not simply a verbal one...but I think the company should be able to control the work environment.
When I worked at a grocery store there were all kinds of rules about what you could and could not wear. You had to wear black shoes and a black belt, you could not wear more than a couple rings. Girls could wear one ear ring in each ear (boys could NOT wear ear rings at all), you could only have a small amount of perfume/cologne. All of these rules were to provide a better environment for the customers (and some were to provide a good work environment).
I think the woman was being rude and disrespectful of her coworkers. They found pork to be revolting, yet she did it anyway...even after being warned by management. I don't think religion is the main issue here...it is about respect of your coworkers.
I do think the company should make it a written policy that pork is not allowed, rather than having a verbal policy...but I do feel that the company should have the right to decide what is proper within the company walls. Of course if she wanted to go outside to eat her pork then they company should not be able to say anything...as long as the pork never comes into the building.
[ August 04, 2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
I stand by everything I said in my first post, but my personal opinion aside, really the company has illegally exercised religious discrimination in their action. They could not ban a food, only all food. They could ban feces because, as far as I've ever been aware, feces have never been considered food stuffs--in fact is considered a human waste by product, and therefore the analogy is not very apt.
The fish analogy is more apt, but I don't know of any companies who have successfully banned it.
In all my years in Human Resources, I have never lost a labor determination, nor has my company ever been sued over our labor policies because we adhere to the laws of the land. We actually had Satanists work for us, and, no, you can't do anything about it. However you can state that no one may wear any jewelry--and you'd better be prepared to enforce it. Otherwise descrimintaion is happening. We enacted a policy of eliminating all printed tees, not just Satanist ones, and were successful in doing so.
This company is finding out that you can't enact specifically descriminating policies without getting challenged.
As was said earlier, the smarter thing to do would be to find other reasons to get rid of her.
But if they want to make a stand, more power to them. Just hope they aren't annoyed too much when it costs them loads of money to defend a, very likely, losing case. Someone tripped on this one.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
More than once, I've heard people say that the compoany should been dishonest about why they got rid of her. That makes me really sad that honesty is considered a poor buisness policy.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Yes, I can understand you there, MPH.
I am sometimes disgusted by business. Sometimes? Wait a minute...
I am disgusted by capitalism in general.
Did I really say that? Wow! What a breakthrough!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I say we should end Capitolism. We should go back to Feudalism, with me as Supreme Monarch.
Now, who would like a fiefdom?
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
All Hail MPH! Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"They could not ban a food, only all food."
Then a heckuva lotta companies are outta compliance with the law. It is quite common to forbid microwave popcorn at work while allowing other foods to be microwaved. And I doubt that very many companies would allow durian fruit, real natto, real dried squid, real kimchee, or real daikon pickles to be eaten on the premises.
[ August 04, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:really the company has illegally exercised religious discrimination in their action.
No, they haven't. They didn't fire her for being Catholic or for not being Muslim. That would be illegal. They fired her for doing something that they told her not to do. Also, they are allowed to enact company policies in accordance with their religious beliefs, as long as they are not contrary to U.S. law.
quote:In all my years in Human Resources, I have never lost a labor determination, nor has my company ever been sued over our labor policies because we adhere to the laws of the land. We actually had Satanists work for us, and, no, you can't do anything about it. However you can state that no one may wear any jewelry--and you'd better be prepared to enforce it. Otherwise descrimintaion is happening. We enacted a policy of eliminating all printed tees, not just Satanist ones, and were successful in doing so.
They did do this - no one in the company is allowed to eat pork on the premises, regardless of what religion they are. I'm sure that if one of the Muslim employees had eaten pork in their building, they whould have fired him or her as well.
As someone who has worked in HR and labor law, I would say that their mistake was in not following the proper disciplinary steps, which are generally verbal warning, written warning, termination.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I'll take that feifdom, btw. I always wanted to be landed gentry.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I dub you BaronessM.
[ August 04, 2004, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It would be religious discrimination if she belonged to a religion that required her to eat pork -- which she does not seem to be claiming.
As to whether the company has a legal leg to stand on, I agree with those who said it depends on whether they have written documentation of her having been told before that she cannot bring pig-derived products into the workplace before.
As far as Jewish businesses go (specifically ones where kosher food is served/prepared -- otherwise it's not a big issue), the ones around here that I am aware of generally provide a small area (and given SoCal weather, sometimes that place is outdoors) for non-Jewish employees to eat their lunches.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I'm not even so sure that eating pork in the presence of a Muslim or observant Jew is really all that rude. Is it rude to drink coffee or beer in the presence of a devout LDS member? Is it rude to eat chocolate (or whatever) in the presence of a Catholic observing Lent? Is it rude to eat at all in the presence of a Muslim observing Ramadan?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I would say that the answer in each of those cases was yes, ifyou had already been asked not to do so.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think the point is that she could get pork on other things.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:I'm not even so sure that eating pork in the presence of a Muslim or observant Jew is really all that rude. Is it rude to drink coffee or beer in the presence of a devout LDS member? Is it rude to eat chocolate (or whatever) in the presence of a Catholic observing Lent? Is it rude to eat at all in the presence of a Muslim observing Ramadan?
Yes, in certain circumstances and definitely on private property belonging to someone who is observant. For example, if I invited someone over to my house and they insisted on eating a ham sandwich they had brought, that would be rude. If I was visiting a Mormon, I would leave my coffee in the car. If I was visiting a Muslim during daylight hours during Ramadan, I wouldn't bring a Snickers, etc.
Actually, since my best friend is Catholic (lapsed now, but observant once), I did refrain from eating candy in front of her when she gave it up for lent.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
There is a difference between having religious convictions and forcing them on your employees. For example; that little store I worked at a couple years ago? It was bought out by Indians. And not the Native American kind. All were practicing Hindus. Well, y'all know how they feel about beef. But, Ricky never said we couldn't eat or partake of anything. Hell, he even took us to Outback for Christmas. There are a lot of products that have pork in them BBQ? Salads from fast food places. Bacon Cheesburgers. Jello and puddings. Potted meat. Vienna sausages, .... so is this guy gonna check EVERYones lunch?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
How is he forcing his religious beliefs on the employees? That's a phrase that's overused. Could I then say that by eating her pork in their building, she's forcing HER religious beliefs on her boss, or lack thereof?
There's a world of difference between asking someone to respect your beliefs, and requiring that they live them. Not eating pork on the premises does no harm to the woman in question, but it does to the employers.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I absolutely agree that in someone's home it would be unspeakably rude to eat or drink something that is against their religious or philosophical beliefs. But in a work place, I don't think it's that cut and dried. That seems awfully close to shoving religion down someone's throat - far more than trying to ban abortion for instance.
If the woman was flaunting the fact that there was bacon in her sandwich - waving it under her boss' nose, of course that would be rude, but there was nothing in the article that indicated that. If she was merely sitting at her desk or in the break room quietly eating a sandwich while she read a book or visited with co-workers, how could that be contrued as rude? Who has to know what's in her sandwich, unless they ask? And as was asked before, where does it end? Do they search everyone's lunch box as they come into work each day?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Here, while I agree that it's very iffy, I agree with the boss, and here's why.
If I found pork to be an unclean meat, (actually I do, but not to that degree. I won't eat it, however) it would be within my rights to try to keep that meat from getting on my lunch. If he were merely another employee, the best he could do is eat somewhere else, or try to keep his hands and work table as sanitary as possible. As the boss, he can keep it out of his building altogether. Does this decision affect someone else? Yes, but not to a very important extent. She's not going to die if she doesn't eat it, in fact, she'd probably benefit from a turkey sandwich.
Now, he has no right to go looking through her stuff to see if she has pork, but if he knows she was eating it, it has to be because he saw it.
[ August 04, 2004, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
PIST, how is a pork product from someoen elses lunch gonna get into YOUR lunch, unless you STEAL said pork containing lunch?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
It doesn't have to get into the lunch itself. It only has to be all over everything in the breakroom, especially the table, and on anything the woman touches. I'm assuming she's not that careful; if she cared that much she wouldn't have had the pork in the first place. So she eats the pork, gets a bit on her hands and the table, and it is spread to other people that way. It's a bit of a stretch, but if something utterly disgusted you, you would want that place to be sanitary from it.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Also note that this 'policy' isn't written. Its verbal. Note also his stance on the issue....
quote:The CEO of Rising Star, Kujaatele Kweli, told Local 6 News that they have tried to create an office that accommodates anybody's religion -- not just Islam.
"Clearly you're accommodating," Holfeld said.
"Yes." Kweli replied.
"And you have an ecumenical philosophy," Holfeld said.
" Yes," Kweli replied.
"(Then) shouldn't you be able to accommodate all faiths in the same lunch room?" Holfeld asked.
"We do, we can," Kweli said.
"But you've dismissed one of your employees for eating pork in the lunch room," Holfeld said.
"Yes, pork is considered unclean," Kweli said.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
All I'm arguing is that an employer has a right to declare that something can't be eaten on premises, as long as he's allowing for the basic nutritional requirements of the employees. If they don't like it, they can work elsewhere.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Yeah you are stretching it a bit. Thats almost as bad as boys hollerin about Girl Cooties....
Also, by THAT analagy, then you are exposed to pork every single day. Every time you go to a grocery store you're getting PORK all over you. Its in the other meat produccts you buy, if you buy deli department foods its contaminated by pork... You go to most any resteraunt and you're getting pork all over you and IN your food. Neither you, I or this guy lives in a vacuum.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Dude, it's not my reasoning. I don't have to worry about what he does at the grocery store to keep pork away from his food. He can do whatever he wants and stretch to whatever lengths to stay pork-free and it's not my problem. That's the point. If he doesn't want pork in his workplace he can say so. If he wants people to take showers at work before beginning, and wear company uniforms while they're there, he can say so. I don't care.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I wonder if people would be reacting so negatively if the business owner were a vegetarian who became ill at the sight/smell of meat and had requested that all employees refrain from bringing meat for lunch?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Vegetarian bastards! *shakes fist*
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Did I mention I may be cooking pork at the picnic? Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
rivka, if it makes you feel better... I'd be much more annoyed if my employer insisted I keep vegetarian on premises.
I haven't decided on a "side" for this issue, though. As long as they were up front about it, I guess it's a reasonable request.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Well, in this case I feel the company is wrong because their policy was not written.
More generally, companies should be allowed to have a no-pork policy if they put it in writing. Of course, I am a hard-core libertarian who believes companies should also be allowed to discriminate against religion, race, gender, and sexual preference in their hiring practices, as well as in their promotion policies as long as they have written policies.
Edit: As for rudeness, I feel it is rude for someone to request you to alter your dietary habits in a workplace. If someone asks me to stop eating meat at work, I would laugh at them. On their own property is different; I do not complain if friends smoke in their house or car while I am with them, but they are not allowed to do it in mine. Seems the same for food, clothing, jewelry, or whatever.
[ August 12, 2004, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Danzig ]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Damn legalities.
The company should have the right to fire the woman for whatever reason it wants. If they want to fire her for being a XX person, fine. If they want to fire her bacause of XXXX, fine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ignoring the mechanical aspects such as notice, warnings, etc., I think I side with the owner. But rivka's point about the vegan is a good one, because it takes the prinicple right to the edge. Not bringing pork into the lunch room seems like a much smaller sacrifice than not being allowed to bring any animal products at all.
I know more about Jewish dietary laws than Muslim (thanks to rivka), so I'll use them in the following:
If a small business had a kitchen for employees to prepare lunch, and a kosher-observant person worked there, I think most people wouldn't expect the business owner to install a second stove for kosher food preparation and to maintain separate sets of dishes. The observant person would be expected to fend for themselves, with the employer providing reasonable accomodations as needed (a separate cupboard to store personal dishes, for example). And I would expect most observant people working in a secular workplace are used to dealing with these issues.
Now flip it around, as in Mrs.M's examples. What if everyone is observant except one person? Should that one person be told not to use the stove or the dishes in a way that makes them unusable in kosher food preparation? I think most people would say that is acceptable.
But that would mean that the one non-Jewish person has inferior luncheon facilities. Is that fair?
It's exactly as fair as the one Jewish person having inferior luncheon facilities in the previous example. I think part of the problem is that the majority religion in this country is well-accomodated in most respects, and this has created a sense of entitlement that this will always be so.
I don't know the Muslim teaching on pork, but I certainly see it as reasonable that an unclean food could contaminate by it's mere presence. If that's the case, then preserving the cafeteria for the majority of employees requires banning pork from that cafeteria.
Dagonee Edit: As a general rule, the larger the company, the more accomodations for different groups it should make. If the company were large enough to support two cafeterias, one pork-free, that would be the best solution.
[ August 12, 2004, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am still not sur where I stand, exactally, on this issue.
I do know that I am more informed thanks to this thread, though...all joking aside....
So, anyone want some barbaqued pigs feet?
Kwea
[ August 12, 2004, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't know if I really want some, but if you're offering, I'll try them.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: If a small business had a kitchen for employees to prepare lunch, and a kosher-observant person worked there, I think most people wouldn't expect the business owner to install a second stove for kosher food preparation and to maintain separate sets of dishes. The observant person would be expected to fend for themselves, with the employer providing reasonable accomodations as needed (a separate cupboard to store personal dishes, for example). And I would expect most observant people working in a secular workplace are used to dealing with these issues.
Now flip it around, as in Mrs.M's examples. What if everyone is observant except one person? Should that one person be told not to use the stove or the dishes in a way that makes them unusable in kosher food preparation? I think most people would say that is acceptable.
The most acceptable answer would be for everyone to make their own food at home. That way, everyone gets what they want. In any case, your example doesn't apply here because no one at the business was being asked to make unclean food and violate their religious principles.
quote: I don't know the Muslim teaching on pork, but I certainly see it as reasonable that an unclean food could contaminate by it's mere presence. If that's the case, then preserving the cafeteria for the majority of employees requires banning pork from that cafeteria.
If this is so, and simply being around pork was something of a 'sin', then Muslims would not be able to exist in the non-Muslim world. I haven't ever heard of this and it doesn't make sense for someone to be unclean simply by being around someone who is commiting the sin, but it would be interesting to get elaboration on this.
In any case,once again, we see the wisdom of secular-based power. If the owner of this business was a-religious, then all the religions of the business would be respected. People would find a way to work together. Because the power resides in one religion that can force its will on non-believers, we have hurt feelings. If the Muslims in that building had to be around someone eating pork at lunch time in order to have employment, I'm pretty sure they would find a way to accomadate.
The only reason the firing is valid is because of the principal of private property. The ideal is that the owner of the business can hire and fire at will. If people want to adhere to this principal, I can understand that as a basis for the firing. Trying to say that those who follow a religion have more rights than those who don't and that the a-religious must make room for the religious rather than the other way around, or just simply finding some kind of common ground, doesn't make sense to me and seems to me to be unreasonable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The most acceptable answer would be for everyone to make their own food at home. That way, everyone gets what they want.
So an employer can’t provide facilities that meet the majority of its employees dietary needs unless it meets all of them? Or are you saying that it’s the normal people without religious dietary restrictions that should get a kitchen to use, even if they’re in the majority.
quote:In any case, your example doesn't apply here because no one at the business was being asked to make unclean food and violate their religious principles.
The example applies perfectly, assuming a Muslim can’t eat in a kitchen used to prepare pork or where pork is served. I don’t know this is the case, but eating a ham sandwich in those conditions is making someone else choose between their religious principles and eating in the employer’s facility.
quote:If this is so, and simply being around pork was something of a 'sin', then Muslims would not be able to exist in the non-Muslim world. I haven't ever heard of this and it doesn't make sense for someone to be unclean simply by being around someone who is commiting the sin, but it would be interesting to get elaboration on this.
Not true. As we’ve seen in other discussions here, kitchen appliances can be considered unsuitable for preparation of kosher food if non-kosher food is prepared on them. It’s a small step to extend that to refrigerators becoming unsuitable for storage of religiously acceptable food if non-acceptable food is stored there.
quote: In any case,once again, we see the wisdom of secular-based power. If the owner of this business was a-religious, then all the religions of the business would be respected. People would find a way to work together. Because the power resides in one religion that can force its will on non-believers, we have hurt feelings. If the Muslims in that building had to be around someone eating pork at lunch time in order to have employment, I'm pretty sure they would find a way to accomadate.
So they should accommodate the others, but the others shouldn’t make changes to accommodate them?
quote:The only reason the firing is valid is because of the principal of private property. The ideal is that the owner of the business can hire and fire at will. If people want to adhere to this principal, I can understand that as a basis for the firing. Trying to say that those who follow a religion have more rights than those who don't and that the a-religious must make room for the religious rather than the other way around, or just simply finding some kind of common ground, doesn't make sense to me and seems to me to be unreasonable.
Well, the private property thing is the undercurrent for my reasoning, too. But it’s specious to say this policy gives the Muslims more rights than non-Muslims. We already make laws respecting people’s sensibilities (hostile work environment, for one). Are those sensibilities to be extended more rights than religious sensibilities?
Dagonee
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
How would this be different from a religious owner insisting that that his employees "refrain from acting gay." Gays can work there, but they must "act properly."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In the workplace? That would depend on what he means by "acting gay."
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
What? Unless ya work in a bordello, spending ones workhours in liplock, or tryin' to get into liplock, ain't gonna please the boss irrespective of sexual preference.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's kind of what I mean - I would assume any actual homosexual activity would be covered by the "no sex in the workplace" rules that most companies have. Although I have been out of the job market for a year, now...
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I mean "acting gay" by however the owner would define it. Lets say the initial contract insists on:
1) No feminine clothing on a man 2) No effeminate posturing by a man 3) No males flirting with other males.
How does this differ in religious needs to the Muslim who needs a pork-free environment?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
1) Dress codes are already acceptable at work. 2) Not sure at all what this means. 3) Flirting is discouraged in most workplaces I've been in.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
2) Shoes with matching socks.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I hate to be dogmatic, but I don't understand how this has gotten so complicated to where folks don't know where they stand. Either there was a written policy with proof that she acknowledged it or there wasn't. Even the prior counseling session about the pizza should have been documented. The employer failed to take these precautions. They are wrong to terminate her for failing to observe their religious beliefs. That's all.
I've been wondering how this thread could still be active, and had to check out of sheer morbid curiosity.
People eat feces all the time- cheese is feces from scum. How gross is that?
Though I didn't know about the microwave popcorn. I imagine it's due to the smell.
P.S. On a side note, are bugs Halal? We were watching Hidalgo last night. I know that gambling is against the teachings of Islam to begin with, but we all have our thresholds of hypocrisy.
[ August 12, 2004, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: If I was visiting a Mormon, I would leave my coffee in the car.
Growing up, we always had a coffee maker in the house and coffee in the freezer for when my grandmother visited. I don't mind, and I don't think most Mormons do if you eat or drink whatever you want to in their presense. I mean, getting drunk and disrupting a wedding might be a problem, and you can't count on getting served, but as long as no one's spiking my drink, whatever other people do is fine.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Pooka -- are you saying that you can only be fired for things that are specifically written down with verification that you agree to them?
Dude -- I need to go back to that Alladin's Castle where I worked as a 'teen and demand my job back...
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
That's funny - the google ads I saw were for pork rinds!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Pooka -- are you saying that you can only be fired for things that are specifically written down with verification that you agree to them?
Not pooka, but that would be a yes.
Ever tried to fire someone and then had to go to the unemployment hearing to prove they were in fact, fired for cause? You can't prove it, unless you have a written document that says they understood the rules and would abide by them. Then, every rule breaking/warning or whatever must ALSO be documented in writing with the employee's signature. Usually you have to have at least two warnings on file before it's acceptable to fire them.
You don't have that - you can forget about winning the case. Heck, sometimes you don't win them even if you have all that. The law protects the employed much more so than the employer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
pooka, I agree with most of that, but that's the boring part of the conversation.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: quote:The most acceptable answer would be for everyone to make their own food at home. That way, everyone gets what they want.
So an employer can’t provide facilities that meet the majority of its employees dietary needs unless it meets all of them? Or are you saying that it’s the normal people without religious dietary restrictions that should get a kitchen to use, even if they’re in the majority.
The easy answer is that it's not the employer's responsibility to provide food for their employees. That way, the employer avoids the whole question of what kind of facilities an employer should or shouldn't have to provide for their employees. However, just as an employer of a particular religious bent doesn't have to accomadate the food choices of others if it goes against his (religious) values, I say that, therefore, in the interest of fairness, NO employer must accomadate the food choices of others at all.
quote: quote:In any case, your example doesn't apply here because no one at the business was being asked to make unclean food and violate their religious principles.
The example applies perfectly, assuming a Muslim can’t eat in a kitchen used to prepare pork or where pork is served. I don’t know this is the case, but eating a ham sandwich in those conditions is making someone else choose between their religious principles and eating in the employer’s facility.
I already mentioned that it's important for our understanding of this particular situation to understand whether or not just being around someone eating pork is prohibited. Your examples solely relied on the business having to make the food, which in this case it was not asked to do (as far as I know). This is why I say your example doesn't apply.
quote: quote:If this is so, and simply being around pork was something of a 'sin', then Muslims would not be able to exist in the non-Muslim world. I haven't ever heard of this and it doesn't make sense for someone to be unclean simply by being around someone who is commiting the sin, but it would be interesting to get elaboration on this.
Not true. As we’ve seen in other discussions here, kitchen appliances can be considered unsuitable for preparation of kosher food if non-kosher food is prepared on them. It’s a small step to extend that to refrigerators becoming unsuitable for storage of religiously acceptable food if non-acceptable food is stored there.
Perhaps. We still need elaboration on the particular Muslim dietary practices. In any case, as far as we know, the woman was fired for eating her ham sandwich around the other employees.
quote: quote: In any case,once again, we see the wisdom of secular-based power. If the owner of this business was a-religious, then all the religions of the business would be respected. People would find a way to work together. Because the power resides in one religion that can force its will on non-believers, we have hurt feelings. If the Muslims in that building had to be around someone eating pork at lunch time in order to have employment, I'm pretty sure they would find a way to accomadate.
So they should accommodate the others, but the others shouldn’t make changes to accommodate them?
No. Ideally,and practically, everyone would find a middle ground. If I'm around someone from another culture, I don't expect them to follow my beliefs. They shouldn't expect me to follow theirs. If someone chooses to follow a religious standard that, for instance, forces them to adhere to strict dietary/social codes, then it is *their* problem, just as any codes I follow are mine. Thus, the Muslim owners shouldn't have asked their employee not to eat pork, just as a secular owner wouldn't server pork or shellfish to Muslims.
'Yeah, but Muslims GOTTA enforce certain standards on others because they're commanded by Allah.'
I don't believe this is, ultimately, an absolute. Because it's not an absolue, it is up for interpretation. Religion is not an out to do whatever you want to do to other people. Just as we condemn those religious cults who force their followers to do bad things, we recognize that their is choice in religion over whether or not to engage in a behavior or follow a creed. After all, if there wasn't, how could we condemn Jonestown and Heaven's Gate? How could we condemn 9/11?
quote: quote:The only reason the firing is valid is because of the principal of private property. The ideal is that the owner of the business can hire and fire at will. If people want to adhere to this principal, I can understand that as a basis for the firing. Trying to say that those who follow a religion have more rights than those who don't and that the a-religious must make room for the religious rather than the other way around, or just simply finding some kind of common ground, doesn't make sense to me and seems to me to be unreasonable.
Well, the private property thing is the undercurrent for my reasoning, too. But it’s specious to say this policy gives the Muslims more rights than non-Muslims. We already make laws respecting people’s sensibilities (hostile work environment, for one). Are those sensibilities to be extended more rights than religious sensibilities?
Dagonee
If a secular employer were to fire someone for eating a ham sandwich, we would consider them very shallow, at the least, and probably silly. After all, how is the person eating the ham sandwich harming the employer? They aren't unless the employer chooses to create that issue in his head. I think people are lending weight to the employer's religious choice solely because it is a religious choice. Circular logic. Religious ideology is no more excuse for silly choices than individual foible. The whole example at the beginning of this thread of 'what if someone were eating a crap sandwich' is silly. If these Muslims lived in an isolated society where they never knew of anyone eating ham, it might be valid, but they don't live in an isolated society. They live in a heterogeneous society where lots of people eat ham. It can't be new to them. So, at worst, the offense to the employer should be one of'Interesting. They're sinners. Too bad they're not Muslims. Oh, well.'
I am not saying that the woman shouldn't have shown more respect for the other employees beliefs. I don't know why she would want to work there, anyway, if eating pork was that important to her. However, my view is that as long as she didn't slap people upside the head with slabs of pork, I pretty much side with her because, ethically, the other employees should have ignored her because she wasn't a part of their culture.
[ August 12, 2004, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:our examples solely relied on the business having to make the food, which in this case it was not asked to do (as far as I know).
None of my examples relied on this. They relied on corporate luncheon facilities - a stove, a microwave to reheat pizza, a fridge to put lunch, etc.
Companies ban popcorn and fish in microwaves, both for the smell. The popcorn ban, at least, is considered silly; it's even been lampooned in Dilbert.
No one is asking for special privileges for a religion. They're asking that private employers be allowed to make dining rules for their private facilities and require employees to follow them. And they're asking that those rules not disallowed simply because they have a religious rationale, rather than a smell rationale.
Dagonee Edit: And it's exactly in the silly examples where rights are tested. It does nothing to say employers have a right if that right can't be exercised in situations where a majority feel it shouldn't be, because in that case we wouldn't need a "right" at all.
[ August 12, 2004, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Pardon, I misinterpreted your analogies, then.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, your replies make a lot more sense now that I realize you were basing them on the company providing food. I knew there was a disconnect somewhere.
I bet we still disagree, though.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, I stand by the rest of what I wrote after the first paragraph about your example. Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'm a little confused. The contract I signed said I could quit or be fired at any time with or without cause. I thought it was pretty standard in Florida. If she signed something like that, does it matter why she was fired if the company reserved the right to fire her for any reason or no reason at all?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It matters - employement laws overrides a lot of contract terms, which are put in anyway. I have no idea what Florida law says on this subject in particular, but in any state the employment contract for a W-2 employee is subject to a lot of laws.
Especially termination clauses.
Dagonee
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
As I understand, you can be fired in Florida for any reason except race, religion, age, or gender. The woman in question went beyond just eating pork in the workplace. She was rude about it.
She ate pizza the first time and was warned. The company agreed that nothing to that effect had ever been put in writing, so they did so. These are from the Orlando Sentinel.
quote:Three days later, the company sent a memo to all employees explaining that the policy existed "so as not to violate the morality or spirituality of our Muslim client and to maintain a comfortable and respectful atmosphere in our joint eating area for our diverse staff."
The paper this morning actually had a picture of the memo, but it doesn't seem to be on-line. Granted, she didn't sign it, but if she didn't like it, she was free to go work somewhere else.
The second time was not just eating a ham sandwich. She actually cooked the bacon in the microwave.
quote:But Kujaatele Kweli, CEO of Rising Star, said Morales was fired for insubordination, not for eating bacon. He said she cooked bacon in the office lunchroom's microwave
That's not just rude, that's malicious.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Well, that certainly does put things in a new light. Thanks.
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
quote: the ones around here that I am aware of generally provide a small area (and given SoCal weather, sometimes that place is outdoors) for non-Jewish employees to eat their lunches.
While it seems like a reasonable way to handle it, isn't that segregation?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Legally the woman has absolutely zero recourse unless she can prove that they fired her because they discriminated against her due to her religion. A private company has the right to fire anyone for any reason except for discrimination. If it were a government position then the firing would have to be justified. And being rude is always a justification in either scenario.
Edit: I didn't see Zgator's post.
[ August 13, 2004, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Thanks for the info, Dag. I had no idea firing someone could be so complicated.
I have to say though, I'm not sure I agree with everyone that she was necessarily being rude. I've had plenty of days where I was running a bit late so I grabbed whatever was in the fridge. She may not have thought of it until she got to work, and it was a bit late then.
Of course, it could be passive agressiveness in action. I'm just saying it seems a bit rude of us to assume we know what she meant by it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One thing to remember is that a small business can't look at it's employment decisions only through the lense of "Will this action hold up in court."
It also matters how far into a court proceeding a complaint would survive. If the complaint survives a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, there will be discovery, which is the costliest part of litigation. And the most potentially damaging.
So even if a firing is perfectly legal, the business still needs to take a hard look at whether a suit is likely, and head it off.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)