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

Kal'Stang said:

So you feel that your beliefs entitle you to dictate company policy?



I think there was a misunderstanding here. That sentence was in reference the question "does the guy that did the hiring have the authority to change company policy?".



Nor do they have to. Find a job that does not have a policy which may interfere with their religious beliefs. You yourself admitted that you voluntarily of your own free will applied for that job. No one forced you to it. You are the supplicant to any job that you apply for.

Lets see if this will get across what I have been trying to say. Can a contract over ride a persons rights? Yes or no?

Click to expand...

When did I say that? I said it depends on the situation. As a personal example a company should have to accommodate my gender identity. Even if I am a genetic male I shouldnt have to follow the male dress code.

It doesnt matter if there are other jobs available. Employees still have rights and employers still have to follow government regulations and guidelines for hiring procedures.

In certain situations yes a contract can override a persons rights. Military service comes to mind. However I dont believe that a contract can override someones rights in most situations but I really dont know the legality of that.

Kal'Stang said:

Then there may be different rules being applied.

Click to expand...

Possibly. That is something I didnt think of.

PirateMk1 said:

I have been sued still do as I please. Just expensive somtimes.

Click to expand...

I can't fault you for that since that's been my position on carrying a gun at work (I've been considering carrying one to collage since it's not illegal, but it's absolutely against the collage's rules. If I get discovered, I'll be expelled, but if I need it and don't have it, I could get killed).

It's quite likely this young lady's family is more like us than we realize. She's going to do what she wants regardless, and she'll see whoever doesn't like it in court.

Jerry said:

I can't fault you for that since that's been my position on carrying a gun at work (I've been considering carrying one to collage since it's not illegal, but it's absolutely against the collage's rules. If I get discovered, I'll be expelled, but if I need it and don't have it, I could get killed).

It's quite likely this young lady's family is more like us than we realize. She's going to do what she wants regardless, and she'll see whoever doesn't like it in court.

Click to expand...

First rule of college, learn to spell college. Just ****ing with you, man.

Jerry said:

I can't fault you for that since that's been my position on carrying a gun at work (I've been considering carrying one to collage since it's not illegal, but it's absolutely against the collage's rules. If I get discovered, I'll be expelled, but if I need it and don't have it, I could get killed).

It's quite likely this young lady's family is more like us than we realize. She's going to do what she wants regardless, and she'll see whoever doesn't like it in court.

Click to expand...

Very True.

Omgitsme said:

When did I say that? I said it depends on the situation. As a personal example a company should have to accommodate my gender identity. Even if I am a genetic male I shouldnt have to follow the male dress code.

Click to expand...

Gender Identity is either genetic or chemical. It is not a belief system. It is simply how you are. As such the two are not equivalent. One is chosen, the other is not. Religion is a belief system, something you can choose. I can understand having to make accomodations for such things as genetics, disorders, handicaps etc etc. But why should an employer have to make an accomodation for something which a person chooses to believe?

Omgitsme said:

It doesnt matter if there are other jobs available. Employees still have rights and employers still have to follow government regulations and guidelines for hiring procedures.

In certain situations yes a contract can override a persons rights. Military service comes to mind. However I dont believe that a contract can override someones rights in most situations but I really dont know the legality of that.

Click to expand...

I've yet to see a contract that can't override a persons rights. The only times the courts ever null a contract is when one party or another breaks that contract or requires that the person do something illegal, such as having a citizen kill/rape a person (extreme example but you get the drift) or the person was tricked/forced into the contract. The reason that the contracts can override a persons rights is because they agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in that contract. They voluntarily wave their rights.

Now when you first get hired onto a job you are generally required to abide by a set of rules, most buisnesses make you sign the company rule handbook (or paper saying that you agree to follow that rulebook) before you start working now a days, your agreement to abide by those rules is a contract, be it a verbal contract or written. Now in this case I happen to know that BK does make you sign such a thing so there is probably evidence that she did sign it. And I would bet 100 dollars that no exceptions were noted down in that handbook which means she is still obligated to follow that rule book.

IMO the girl may have standing to sue the guy that hired her for something or other because he was in the wrong, but BK? Thier dress code for normal employee's is applied universally with no discrimination. They should not be sued for non-discrimination.

Jerry said:

I can't fault you for that since that's been my position on carrying a gun at work (I've been considering carrying one to collage since it's not illegal, but it's absolutely against the collage's rules. If I get discovered, I'll be expelled, but if I need it and don't have it, I could get killed).

It's quite likely this young lady's family is more like us than we realize. She's going to do what she wants regardless, and she'll see whoever doesn't like it in court.

Click to expand...

But would you sue the college if they expelled you for carrying the gun?

X Factor said:

First rule of college, learn to spell college. Just ****ing with you, man.

Click to expand...

Maybe when English starts following it's own rules, then others can be expected to.

I would support her, especially in light of the fact that she was assured she could do it. If nothing else, the Burger King employee misrepresented the position. A skirt isn't going to kill anyone and I doubt they can show it's a security or safety hazard.

I say leave her alone.

Aderleth said:

I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for this sort of thing. If your religion forbids you from doing things, or wearing things related to a specific job, get another job. If you can't get another job, tough ****. It's your own damn fault, and there's no good reason an employer should have to change their own practices to support your religion. This case reminds me of the following:

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs - ABC News

Click to expand...

I agree in cases like that, where the religion gets in the way of the fundamental functions of the job, something the employee ought to have known beforehand, but in this case, it's wearing a skirt instead of pants. So what?

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...

Depends on the circumstances. If she was up-front about her desire to wear one and the hiring manager told her she could, I'd be on her side too. However, if she just showed up one day wearing one and declared it her religious right, I'd be holding the door open when they kicked her ass out.

Kal'Stang said:

But would you sue the college if they expelled you for carrying the gun?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't have grounds. If I get caught, I get expelled, just like if I get caught at work I can get fired. If I join the Army I can be deployed and possibly killed. If I have sex I may have another child to raise. If I'm rude to member in-thread there may be some infraction points waiting form me when I log in next time.

I'm not trying to drag in all sorts of other topics, I'm only trying to show that one has to accept the consequences for their actions, or not do the action in the first place.

Related to BK, as I originally posted when I joined this thread, I think both sides are wrong. The teen knew (just from living in the aria and knowing what BK is, aka common sense) that pants were part of the uniform. When she applied, she knew she would have to wear pants. She shouldn't be crying about being turned away.

The other side of it is BK knew they have to accommodate all kinds of religious practices, so they shouldn't have turned her away for that. Once she passed the interview, whether she told them about wearing a skirt or not, whether the interviewer approved a skirt or not, BK knew that they would get sued at that point, so the store manager should have just allowed the skirt so as to avoid the lawsuit. There are several better ways BK could have handled this. They could have let the teen work for a few weeks and then let her go "without cause"; they could have made up some lame 'causes' which would have been just good enough to avoid wrongful termination; the store manager could have made a store policy allowing it and then send word to corporate for them to deal with it, etc. So even if this teen is just a gold digger, BK ****ed up and fell into the trap, so I'm calling their lawsuit "stupid tax" because BK knows better.

Cephus said:

I agree in cases like that, where the religion gets in the way of the fundamental functions of the job, something the employee ought to have known beforehand, but in this case, it's wearing a skirt instead of pants. So what?

Click to expand...

Maybe she should just find another job. LOL! I think she wants money. I mean, come on, it's Burger King!

ChrisL said:

Maybe she should just find another job. LOL! I think she wants money. I mean, come on, it's Burger King!

Click to expand...

I'm sure she will find another job but in this case, Burger King was just wrong. When your employees, who are officially representing your company, tell someone something in an official capacity, which any hiring manager is doing, it becomes policy. If they told her she could wear a skirt, she can wear a skirt. If anyone ought to be out on the street, it ought to be the person who violate the trust of the company by passing on bad information.

Cephus said:

I'm sure she will find another job but in this case, Burger King was just wrong. When your employees, who are officially representing your company, tell someone something in an official capacity, which any hiring manager is doing, it becomes policy. If they told her she could wear a skirt, she can wear a skirt. If anyone ought to be out on the street, it ought to be the person who violate the trust of the company by passing on bad information.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's where the mistake lies. With the employee who told her it would be alright to wear a skirt, when it obviously isn't. That employee should lose his/her job for giving this potential employee false information, and Burger King shouldn't have to cater to this person who just wants to make a buck. I don't think companies should have to make "special" accommodations because of somebody's religious beliefs.

ChrisL said:

Yes, I think that's where the mistake lies. With the employee who told her it would be alright to wear a skirt, when it obviously isn't. That employee should lose his/her job for giving this potential employee false information, and Burger King shouldn't have to cater to this person who just wants to make a buck. I don't think companies should have to make "special" accommodations because of somebody's religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

And I would agree with you, right up until that manager told her that they would. Once they said that, it's no longer a special accommodation, it's a hiring agreement, just like agreeing that someone doesn't have to work on Tuesdays if they have school.

Cephus said:

And I would agree with you, right up until that manager told her that they would. Once they said that, it's no longer a special accommodation, it's a hiring agreement, just like agreeing that someone doesn't have to work on Tuesdays if they have school.

Click to expand...

But what if the manager made a mistake or was not familiar with the rules? Why does BK have to support something that an employee erroneously told another potential employee?

Fletch said:

That is the employees contention, but we have no way of knowing whether or not that was true. Personally, I find it hard to believe that a manager in charge of hiring people would be confused about uniform policy, but BK hasnt figured out how to serve a hot hamburger so anything is possible. But the main point here is whether or not a company has the right to institute its own dress code. Or whether it must accommodate every nonsensical religious belief any prospective employee walks through the door with. Requiring women to wear pants while working is not an unusual requirement. Women wear pants all the time--womens pants. So if this girl has some moronic objection to wearing mens pants, she can wear womens pants.

Click to expand...

Showing your intolerance by calling the woman a moron does not strengthen your case. In fact it reduced your personal credibility on this thread. Obviously you didn't take the time to read the OP post or you would be making a statement about women's pants....or any pants at all.

American said:

Showing your intolerance by calling the woman a moron does not strengthen your case. In fact it reduced your personal credibility on this thread. Obviously you didn't take the time to read the OP post or you would be making a statement about women's pants....or any pants at all.

Click to expand...

I did read the link. And her beliefs are moronic

Furiounova said:

I see. When did you last protest not having a Whites Only restaurant?

Click to expand...

This is such an idiotic comment it hardly bears response. Since I dont protest Hooters I would probably not protest a "whites only" restaurant. Since I dont FREQUENT Hooters I probably wouldnt frequent a "whites only" restaurant. Since I have a bit of mud in my blood I probably wouldnt be welcome at one. Oh sure...I could respond with an equally childish comment like "when did I last protest not having a whites only restaurant...hmmm...I think it was just after I stopped banging your mother..." but that would be equally childish so I wont go there. No...lets just leave it at what it was...a comment on individuals rights and freedoms. You have a right to NOT frequent an establishment. You do NOT have the right to not get all butthurt because you dont like the rules of said establishment. As for your racist comment...well...how IS your mom doing these days?

Goshin said:

it's also called kiss the boss' ass or he can fire you for nothing. I live in a "right to work state" so I know firsthand. An employer can typically fire an employee and not suffer any great or lasting financial harm...

Click to expand...

that is incorrect. having employment rules that cause quality employees to seek out your competitors will cause them to out compete you, and your business will die. actual bias or abuse by employers is incredibly self-destructive. Employees are free to quit for any reason but employers aren't free to fire for any reason? That's not fair - that's using government as your bully, to tilt the rules in your favor.

cpwill said:

that is incorrect. having employment rules that cause quality employees to seek out your competitors will cause them to out compete you, and your business will die. actual bias or abuse by employers is incredibly self-destructive. Employees are free to quit for any reason but employers aren't free to fire for any reason? That's not fair - that's using government as your bully, to tilt the rules in your favor.

Click to expand...

Not when the economy is bad and 100 people line up to apply for even the crappier jobs....

I would say it is up to the company, but it would probably be a good thing to allow it if possible for safety reasons.

Being in a fast food est, it might not be possible for safety reasons. (Grease, the skirt getting caught on corners etc)

Goshin said:

Not when the economy is bad and 100 people line up to apply for even the crappier jobs....

Click to expand...

That is why it pays to have a skill. If you do a job that anyone can do, then you are, well, expendable. But if your job requires training and skill and is difficult to fill, then any rational employer will bend over backward to make you happy on the job. Having the state ste in and protect the jobs of the unskilled reduces the incentive for those unskilled workers to better themselves and learn a marketable trade.

Goshin said:

Not when the economy is bad and 100 people line up to apply for even the crappier jobs....

Click to expand...

I can understand the point you are trying to make here, where it would be easier for an employer to mistreat an employee because he or she might be desperate for a job and not in a position to just quit. Still though, I don't think it gets much worse than BK as far as pay rates go, and this does not negate the fact that if an employee is unhappy with his job, he or she can quit. Of course, I do think that employers should be held to standards too, but I still think this particular case is completely bogus, this girl probably does not NEED a job as she is a teenager and lives with her parents, she was most likely misinformed by another employee who was obviously unfamiliar with the dress code, BK has uniforms that are standard for everybody, and I think she just wants a payday. IMO, the employer should not have to cater to anybody's religious quirks.