• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Christian Woman Fired from Burger King for Wearing Skirt Instead of Pants

Hatuey said:
I am - not - religious. I don't honestly give two ****s what religion it is. Burger King has rules for its employees. She doesn't have to work there if she doesn't like their rules.
Click to expand...


She should sue their brains out like every other religion would do under the same circumstances.....
 
lpast said:
She should sue their brains out like every other religion would do under the same circumstances.....
Click to expand...

The worst part about suing for discrimination is that the overwhelming majority of cases don't even make it to court because there is not sufficient evidence.
 
Hatuey said:
The worst part about suing for discrimination is that the overwhelming majority of cases don't even make it to court because there is not sufficient evidence.
Click to expand...

I dont know muslims seem to have a pretty good track record suing...
 
lpast said:
I dont know muslims seem to have a pretty good track record suing...
Click to expand...

Sure they do. Just as christians sue anybody for any bitchy reason. That doesn't mean they win. If you can show us that "track record" it'd be great though.
 
Hatuey said:
Sure they do. Just as christians sue anybody for any bitchy reason. That doesn't mean they win. If you can show us that "track record" it'd be great though.
Click to expand...

Not worth the effort...just google you will see alot of bitchy suing muslims lol
 
This appears to violate her religious rights.
 
Hatuey said:
What other end of the freedom argument? She has the freedom not to work at Burger King and Burger King has the freedom to not employ her if she doesn't want to abide by their dress code. Which they do have like every other chain out there.



What if - what if - what if. The rules I'm dealing with are the ones that exist. They are the same for everyone who wants to work for Burger King.
Click to expand...

There should be no issue with a person wearing religious whatever in the workplace as long as it does not present a safety hazard. However, if the applicant knows going from the interview that employees are required to dress in a manner that would interfere with said applicant's religious beliefs, the employer should not be required to accommodate the religious dress code of applicant once the applicant becomes an employee.

If it is MY business, and I have established dress codes, there's no way I should have to make religious dress code exceptions as long as the requirements were clear prior to the employee accepting a position working for me.

What's Hooters if employees are dressed like Hester Prynne? That'd be a hell of buzz kill for a lot of beer drinking guys. You might expect my Hooter franchise to experience a downturn in profits.
 
Surtr said:
Actually, it means everything, since it was the interviewer who told her that she could wear the skirt. That's not a small thing, the girl did everything right by telling her employer during the interview, and when the employer agreed to it a verbal contract was made.
Click to expand...

Good luck proving the existence of a verbal contract.
 
lpast said:
Not worth the effort...just google you will see alot of bitchy suing muslims lol
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between "suing" and "suing and winning"? I can sue people right and left. Doesn't mean much if the lawsuits are tossed out. You made a claim, time to back it up. :)
 
Surtr said:
Actually, it means everything, since it was the interviewer who told her that she could wear the skirt. That's not a small thing, the girl did everything right by telling her employer during the interview, and when the employer agreed to it a verbal contract was made.
Click to expand...
I would like to hear the interviewers side of the story. I find it hard to believe that a manager would not know BKs dress code. But even if the interviewer did tell the girl she could wear a dress that wouldnt trump a written dress code, nor do I see any valid reason here for a lawsuit against BK. The girl can work there, I suppose, if she wears the proper uniform. So as much as it pains me to say so, Hatuey is right. Now, if I could only get him to apply the same principle to other instances of employer/employee relationships....
 
Frankly, I'm surprised BK doesn't have this covered somehow in the written contract with employees.
 
The whole matter probably is a storm in a teacup, in that a lot of companies insist on a uniform dress code for purely business reasons, such as airlines etc....

It is taking political correctness too far to think otherwise and those who feel disadvantaged probably have no sensible alternative than either to conform or seek employment elsewhere.
 
MaggieD said:
Oops. I missed the "uniform pants" part. The fact that someone said, "It'll be okay," really doesn't enter into the discussion other than, "Well, I changed my mind." Does that mean if she were a LEO she'd be wearing a long skirt? A fireman? Forget it. She's wrong. "Sorry, sweetie, this job's not for you."

I agree with you. Forget I posted. :rofl
Click to expand...
At one point, the uniform suppliers did offer skirts.
 
Hatuey said:
Good luck proving the existence of a verbal contract.
Click to expand...

Even if the verbal contract isn't proven, there's still that pesky federal law concerning equal opportunity employment.

Fletch said:
I would like to hear the interviewers side of the story. I find it hard to believe that a manager would not know BKs dress code. But even if the interviewer did tell the girl she could wear a dress that wouldnt trump a written dress code, nor do I see any valid reason here for a lawsuit against BK. The girl can work there, I suppose, if she wears the proper uniform. So as much as it pains me to say so, Hatuey is right. Now, if I could only get him to apply the same principle to other instances of employer/employee relationships....
Click to expand...

All the guy had to do was say that they can't accommodate her, and therefore can't be hired. It's not difficult. When the interviewer told her that it wouldn't be a problem, he ****ed up, and is going to cost that franchise some bucks. Even if they can't prove the verbal contract, federal law is on the girls side on this one.
 
Risky Thicket said:
There should be no issue with a person wearing religious whatever in the workplace as long as it does not present a safety hazard. However, if the applicant knows going from the interview that employees are required to dress in a manner that would interfere with said applicant's religious beliefs, the employer should not be required to accommodate the religious dress code of applicant once the applicant becomes an employee.

If it is MY business, and I have established dress codes, there's no way I should have to make religious dress code exceptions as long as the requirements were clear prior to the employee accepting a position working for me.
Click to expand...

Apparently, the EEOC is suing because the employer failed to make accomodations for her religious beliefs. Here's a couple of excerpts from the filing:


This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to correctunlawful employment practices on the basis of religion and to make whole Ashanti McShan.The Defendant violated Title VII by failing to accommodate Ms. McShan ’s religious beliefs, which subsequently resulted in her termination.
Click to expand...





The Defendant hired Ms. McShan was as a Cashier. At the time of her interview for the job, Ms. McShan asked to wear a skirt instead of uniform pants as a religiousaccommodation. Defendant assured her that she could wear a skirt to work. However, when she arrived at work for orientation, the store management informed Ms. McShanthat she could not wear a skirt and that she had to leave the store. Ms. McShan wasrequired to leave despite her explanation that she was wearing the skirt with theunderstanding that she would be allowed a religious accommodation
.8. The result of the foregoing practices has been to deprive Ashanti McShanof equal employment opportunities because of her religious beliefs and observances as aChristian Pentecostal
.9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 abovewere intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 abovewere done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ashanti McShan.
Click to expand...
 
Aunt Spiker said:
If she's a pentecostal then WHY is she working there to begin with?

Ok - that's not allowed - she should never have applied. I was raise Pente - no no!!
Click to expand...


I agree.

What is this strange desire that comes over some people to go where they know they will not be allowed to go! Why? I will never understand it! Never!
 
Surtr said:
Even if the verbal contract isn't proven, there's still that pesky federal law concerning equal opportunity employment.



All the guy had to do was say that they can't accommodate her, and therefore can't be hired. It's not difficult. When the interviewer told her that it wouldn't be a problem, he ****ed up, and is going to cost that franchise some bucks. Even if they can't prove the verbal contract, federal law is on the girls side on this one.
Click to expand...
Why would it cost them money? Even if the interviewer screwed up, it was corrected when she showed up for orientation. The accusation that this represents some sort of religious discrimination on BKs part is just not there. At best, the initial interviewer made a mistake as to what was allowed in the area of uniforms, but that is not something that a person can sue for damages over.
 
Accordingh to the complaint filed by the EEOC... The EEOC investigates these matters pretty extensively prior to suit. In many cases they issue a "right to sue " letter and leave it up to the claimant to litigate the matter within a specified period.

"The Defendant hired Ms. McShan was as a Cashier. At the time of her interview for the job, Ms. McShan asked to wear a skirt instead of uniform pants as a religiousaccommodation. Defendant assured her that she could wear a skirt to work. However, when she arrived at work for orientation, the store management informed Ms. McShanthat she could not wear a skirt and that she had to leave the store. Ms. McShan wasrequired to leave despite her explanation that she was wearing the skirt with theunderstanding that she would be allowed a religious accommodation".

EEOC v Fries Restaurant Management
 
Your Star said:
I hate to do this, but if this was a muslim woman being fired for wearing a hijab I'm pretty sure this would be a VERY different thread.
Click to expand...

I've gotta tell you: from my perspective it absolutely would not be.
 
Aderleth said:
I've gotta tell you: from my perspective it absolutely would not be.
Click to expand...

He is probably right. If a Muslim were to do a similar thing there would be accusations that she was trying to impose Sharia law.
 
Connery said:
Accordingh to the complaint filed by the EEOC... The EEOC investigates these matters pretty extensively prior to suit. In many cases they issue a "right to sue " letter and leave it up to the claimant to litigate the matter within a specified period.

"The Defendant hired Ms. McShan was as a Cashier. At the time of her interview for the job, Ms. McShan asked to wear a skirt instead of uniform pants as a religiousaccommodation. Defendant assured her that she could wear a skirt to work. However, when she arrived at work for orientation, the store management informed Ms. McShanthat she could not wear a skirt and that she had to leave the store. Ms. McShan wasrequired to leave despite her explanation that she was wearing the skirt with theunderstanding that she would be allowed a religious accommodation".

EEOC v Fries Restaurant Management
Click to expand...
So if the initial interviewer had told her 'no' as to wearing the skirt, would she still have sued? Because some low level manager believed such an accomodation could be made does not bind BK to making it. I just dont see the religious discrimination here. If someones religious faith told them that they could onlywork Monday, Wednesday and Friday and I refused to hire them would that be religious discimination on my part? There is absolutely no reason why an employer must 'accomodate' every nonsensical mystical belief. He is trying to run a business after all.
 
Fletch said:
Why would it cost them money?
Click to expand...
They violated federal law.

Even if the interviewer screwed up, it was corrected when she showed up for orientation. The accusation that this represents some sort of religious discrimination on BKs part is just not there. At best, the initial interviewer made a mistake as to what was allowed in the area of uniforms, but that is not something that a person can sue for damages over.
Click to expand...
She was hired, then immediately fired due entirely to her religious beliefs. The interviewer making a mistake is most definitely a cause for punitive action. Try tell a Fire Marshal, or an OSHA inspector that your business is out of regs because the other guy made a mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom