• 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

CaptainCourtesy;1060834466[B said:
]BK is a private business. [/B]They have a dress code that is not in place because of religious discrimination. If the girl cannot abide by their dress code because of her religion, she should not work there. It is not BK's responsibility to alter their dress code to accommodate her. It is irrelevant as to whether it would be easy for them or not.

IF an interviewer told her that it was OK, that interviewer should be fired. I do not know whether what the interviewer said would have an impact on the lawsuit, but if the dress code is clearly stated in BK's codes of conduct, I don't think the girl has any leg to stand on.

BK is a private business no doubt, however, they substantially effect commerce and have the requisite number of employees therefore fall must comply with Title VII. Moreover, as a private business that substantially effects commerce and has the requisite number of employees they must abide by these laws not withstanding their private dress code, in this instance. Indeed, if the issue were that the teenager needed to pray every hour and there was no substantial impact on the ability to perform her task then very few would have an issue with this situation and if BK would not allow her to pray it would be easier to find for the woman. She is not attempting to force her views, her values or her religion on BK she is seeking to have her rights protected in accordance to what BK is required to do.

The employee should prevail as a matter of law unless BK "demonstrates that they are unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business."

The relevant applicable law applicable to BK:


"TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER VI - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

42 U.S.C. Section 2000e. Definitions

(b) The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year

(g) The term “commerce” means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States; or between a State and any place outside thereof; or within the District of Columbia, or a possession of the United States; or between points in the same State but through a point outside thereof.

(h) The term “industry affecting commerce” means any activity, business, or industry in commerce or in which a labor dispute would hinder or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce and includes any activity or industry “affecting commerce” within the meaning of the Labor-*Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 [29 U.S.C. 401 et seq.], and further includes any governmental industry, business, or activity."
 
Hang on a minute. She was hired in August 2010. 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. She never even worked a day there. That was two years ago.

It's taken 2 years to file the lawsuit and she's claiming back pay with prejudgment interest, reinstatement or frontpay in lieu thereof etc etc...

Are you kidding me? Two years? Please tell me she has secured employment elsewhere or at the very least been busting her ass exploring every avenue to find something suitable....

Any award amount involving back wages would be reduced by the wages, unemployment payments etc. she may have received. Moreover, the former employee is under a duty to mitigate her damages I.E. a good faith search for employment.

She is seeking other damages such as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages as these actions may be considered to have been intentional.

The world is not black and white where rules are applied at the whim of those who were placed in a position of authority and at there convenience. Such is an abuse of position and authority and in this case actionable.
 
BK is a private business no doubt, however, they substantially effect commerce and have the requisite number of employees therefore fall must comply with Title VII. Moreover, as a private business that substantially effects commerce and has the requisite number of employees they must abide by these laws not withstanding their private dress code, in this instance. Indeed, if the issue were that the teenager needed to pray every hour and there was no substantial impact on the ability to perform her task then very few would have an issue with this situation and if BK would not allow her to pray it would be easier to find for the woman. She is not attempting to force her views, her values or her religion on BK she is seeking to have her rights protected in accordance to what BK is required to do.

The employee should prevail as a matter of law unless BK "demonstrates that they are unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business."

The relevant applicable law applicable to BK:


"TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER VI - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

42 U.S.C. Section 2000e. Definitions

(b) The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year

(g) The term “commerce” means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States; or between a State and any place outside thereof; or within the District of Columbia, or a possession of the United States; or between points in the same State but through a point outside thereof.

(h) The term “industry affecting commerce” means any activity, business, or industry in commerce or in which a labor dispute would hinder or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce and includes any activity or industry “affecting commerce” within the meaning of the Labor-*Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 [29 U.S.C. 401 et seq.], and further includes any governmental industry, business, or activity."

Good luck with that. if this was a minority, every conservative including yourself would say BK is a business and has the right to fired. This is really a non-issue. However since we are talking about a young white christian girl, everybody wants to defend and come up with every excuse in the book on why she is right. The point here is BK is a business, they have uniform code that doesn't have anything to do with religious discrimination. She can't hide under religion just because she can't follow the rules.
 
Any award amount involving back wages would be reduced by the wages, unemployment payments etc. she may have received. Moreover, the former employee is under a duty to mitigate her damages I.E. a good faith search for employment.

She is seeking other damages such as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages as these actions may be considered to have been intentional.

The world is not black and white where rules are applied at the whim of those who were placed in a position of authority and at there convenience. Such is an abuse of position and authority and in this case actionable.
How would this case be different had the initial interviewer refused to hire her unless she agreed to wear pants? And who the hell thinks pants are mens clothing anyway? Go to any clothing store and you will find womens pants. Are t-shirts mens clothing? This whole case is beyond stupid.
 
Good luck with that. if this was a minority, every conservative including yourself would say BK is a business and has the right to fired.

This is your first mistake...............you have no idea what the I am............on any given issue....





This is really a non-issue. However since we are talking about a young white christian girl, everybody wants to defend and come up with every excuse in the book on why she is right. The point here is BK is a business, they have uniform code that doesn't have anything to do with religious discrimination. She can't hide under religion just because she can't follow the rules.

This was your second mistake you have no idea what you are talking about ragarding the facts, the law and how the facts are applied to the law.
 
Good luck with that. if this was a minority, every conservative including yourself would say BK is a business and has the right to fired. This is really a non-issue. However since we are talking about a young white christian girl, everybody wants to defend and come up with every excuse in the book on why she is right. The point here is BK is a business, they have uniform code that doesn't have anything to do with religious discrimination. She can't hide under religion just because she can't follow the rules.
Name one conservative who would make such an argument.
 
How would this case be different had the initial interviewer refused to hire her unless she agreed to wear pants? And who the hell thinks pants are mens clothing anyway? Go to any clothing store and you will find womens pants. Are t-shirts mens clothing? This whole case is beyond stupid.

If the interviewer stated pants were a safety measure then there would be no case. If the interviewer said BK will not hire her because of her religious practice of wearing a dress then the girl had a right to file a compliant with the EEOC it is as simple as that.
 
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. :)


Do you know the difference between someone saying she should SUE and shes guaranteed to win...what are you talking about man ? ..dont put words in my mouth ok...I never said it was a guaranteed win...I said she should sue their ass off...and she should...winning or losing is endgame
 
If the interviewer stated pants were a safety measure then there would be no case. If the interviewer said BK will not hire her because of her religious practice of wearing a dress then the girl had a right to file a compliant with the EEOC it is as simple as that.
A companys global uniform policy must be based upon safety measures and not company preference? I wasnt aware of that. How do you know that at the orientation she wasnt told that the reason for the pants was safety? Or maybe, BK just insists that everyone wear pants. Isnt that their right?

Pants are not exclusively mens clothing, so it is really as simple as that. Besides, if you watch Charleton Heston in The Ten Commandments, he walked around all the time in a dress. So maybe this girl has her religion all back asswards.
 
A companys global uniform policy must be based upon safety measures and not company preference?
I never said that. I was merely giving an example.
I wasnt aware of that. How do you know that at the orientation she wasnt told that the reason for the pants was safety? Or maybe, BK just insists that everyone wear pants. Isnt that their right?

They can have a dress code, but, the implementation of that dress code does not supersede their legal requirements and responsibilities pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Pants are not exclusively mens clothing, so it is really as simple as that. Besides, if you watch Charleton Heston in The Ten Commandments, he walked around all the time in a dress. So maybe this girl has her religion all back asswards


Charlton Heston ....seriously?????

take-these-2-tablets-demotivational.jpg
 
If the interviewer stated pants were a safety measure then there would be no case. If the interviewer said BK will not hire her because of her religious practice of wearing a dress then the girl had a right to file a compliant with the EEOC it is as simple as that.

Except no one at BK said that she would not be hired because of her religion, nor did any of them say that she was fired because of it. She was fired because she thought her religion superceded a private companies dress code. A dress code that has been in effect for longer than she's been alive.
 
I never said that. I was merely giving an example.


They can have a dress code, but, the implementation of that dress code does not supersede their legal requirements and responsibilities pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I dont see how requiring pant to be worn is a violation since pants are not exclusively male clothing.




Charlton Heston ....seriously?????
Dude, the guy wore a dress throughout the entire movie. He never once wore pants. No one did.
 
It seems like a really idiotic rule. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't accommodate her, especially when the employee who interviewed her told her she could wear the skirt. That being said, a lawsuit is going a bit far. It's a fast food job, there are plenty of others out there.
 
Please link to the transcript.
No need. The girl never claimed that BK management told her she was not being hired because she was Pentecostal.
 
Except no one at BK said that she would not be hired because of her religion, nor did any of them say that she was fired because of it. She was fired because she thought her religion superceded a private companies dress code. A dress code that has been in effect for longer than she's been alive.

I have posted and directed you to the EEOC press release outlining their position in addition to the lawsuit and it's language in response to your position previously. Kindly review these documents, should you wish to discuss these issues further. Moreover, the rewording of your issue is incorrect. The women does not think her religion supersedes a private dress code/company policy. That policy must fall in line with what BK agreed to when they decided to hire the requisite number of employees and engage in activities described in "TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS, SUBCHAPTER VI - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES.
 
Please link to the transcript.

The transcript of what? What BK said? I'm just going by the information that is available in the OP. Which clearly states that the person doing the hiring said she could wear the skirt and then the employee doing the orientation told her to go home at which point the girl tried to explain why she was wearing a skirt. The guy doing the orientation obviously told her to go home before her explanation which means he obviously did not know it had anything to do with her religion. And since the guy doing the hiring did hire her it is obvious that he didn't hire her because of her religious practices (hope that bit there made sense..i've been awake since midnight), even though Connery's post explicitly says that "If the interviewer said BK will not hire her because of her religious practice".

As you can see no transcript is needed.
 
If you are working some place.... the one who pays your fares doesn't have to accommodate anybody breaking the dress code if he doesn't want to.

Get over it!

If you are a religious fundamentalist, why not work in a place that wont give you any trouble? why insist on going to places where your way of dressing will rub the people the wrong way?


What's wrong with these people?


There is nothing wrong with "these" people. "These" people are you and me and anyone who is in the work force in the US and this is not just about religion, but, a variety of categories and protected classes. Just because one is paying a wage it does not give them "carte blanche" to run rough shod over their employees rights. The employer is running a business in the US which has various laws which the employer must follow. Should the employer wish to have implement their own internal rules they cannot run counter to laws which are promulgated to protect the rights of those that are employed, patronize, or use the goods and services regarding that business.
 
There is nothing wrong with "these" people. "These" people are you and me and anyone who is in the work force in the US and this is not just about religion, but, a variety of categories and protected classes. Just because one is paying a wage it does not give them "carte blanche" to run rough shod over their employees rights. The employer is running a business in the US which has various laws which the employer must follow. Should the employer wish to have implement their own internal rules they cannot run counter to laws which are promulgated to protect the rights of those that are employed, patronize, or use the goods and services regarding that business.

Yes, but we have to be reasonable. Employers cannot be expected to accommodate everyone's religious beliefs. That is unreasonable. This is just another reason why I can support separation of church and state (although I think people get way too carried out with that sometimes too).
 
I have posted and directed you to the EEOC press release outlining their position in addition to the lawsuit and it's language in response to your position previously. Kindly review these documents, should you wish to discuss these issues further. Moreover, the rewording of your issue is incorrect. The women does not think her religion supersedes a private dress code/company policy. That policy must fall in line with what BK agreed to when they decided to hire the requisite number of employees and engage in activities described in "TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS, SUBCHAPTER VI - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES.

And I've asked before...does that guy have the right to supercede the companies rules? Or am I reading your post incorrectly?

And no, my wording is entirely correct. Otherwise why would the girl try and get a job at a place she KNEW had a dress code that did not coincide with her religious beliefs?
 
There is nothing wrong with "these" people. "These" people are you and me and anyone who is in the work force in the US and this is not just about religion, but, a variety of categories and protected classes. Just because one is paying a wage it does not give them "carte blanche" to run rough shod over their employees rights. The employer is running a business in the US which has various laws which the employer must follow. Should the employer wish to have implement their own internal rules they cannot run counter to laws which are promulgated to protect the rights of those that are employed, patronize, or use the goods and services regarding that business.

A person has a right to follow whatever religion they wish. They do not have the right to have others follow that belief or force them to adhere to their beliefs. No matter what some law says.
 
I really don't believe that Burger King is actively discriminating against this woman's religion. I think they are trying to be practical, and that this is not a personal attack against this woman's beliefs in any way. I don't agree that it is a case of religious discrimination at all.
 
Yes, but we have to be reasonable. Employers cannot be expected to accommodate everyone's religious beliefs. That is unreasonable. This is just another reason why I can support separation of church and state (although I think people get way too carried out with that sometimes too).


BK will have their opportunity to show whether it is reasonable or not. As a individual I can understand why some one may view this as unreasonable, but, that is not the law. "The employee should prevail as a matter of law unless BK "demonstrates that they are unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business."( see posts 63, 172, 252)
 
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.

It's funny to see you make an argument like this. I assume you feel the same way when people whine about businesses not treating their workers well enough or fairly or whatever. Who knew you were so pro big business.
 
Back
Top Bottom