• 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

Why are those opposed to this woman religious observance and the EEOC"s lawsuit so hard bitten if this woman gets some monetary award. It will not be much in back wages and she will be taxed like anyone for punitive damages or emotional distress. This woman and everyone else has a Constitutionally protected right in freedom of religion and Title VII merely insures that without breaching the Establishment clause. Hypothetically, if the reverse happened where BK was forcing this woman to wear a "habit" or a male to get circumcised in order to work because BK observed one religion or another The same people would be citing these constitutional guarantees.

I don't think "clothing" should be a constitutional guarantee when it comes to employment. If the employer has a dress code, there is usually a good reason for it. I don't think business just have dress codes and buy uniforms for their employees for the fun of it. IMO, a business should not have to cater to a person's religious beliefs in this way, and if they have a dress code, everyone should have to follow it (unless there are medical reasons), or find another job. I'm sorry, but I don't feel sorry for her. I just don't. :shrug:
 
She says it is

Okay. You still aren't getting it, apparently.

She is Pentecostal, which is a sect of Christianity. Based on her religion, she believes that women should not wear pants. She is not going to work, BK or otherwise, to practice her religion, but she does want to observe what she thinks is proper attire based on her religion.
 
Does BK have a requirement that pants must be worn? All I've found so far is their non-skid shoes requirement.
 
Where has her religious freedoms been abolished?

And what back wages? She left during orientation, which I think is the START of employment.

I have cited this case, the facts, the press release by the EEOC, the law, the damage award, the investigative process required by law of the EEOC and the right and responsibilities of the parties during the investigative process in numerous posts. I respectfully request that you search my posts herein should you wish to gather that information and discuss my position.
 
For those that fall under the responsibility to comply with Title VII and for those who are protected by Title VII those right are insured and there is no abuse whatsoever.



I wondered about this. Seems they have lost this in the past and now want to resurrect it again. Pat Robertson and the ACLJ hard at work.

ACLU Letter on the Harmful Effect of S. 893, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, on Critical Personal and Civil Rights | American Civil Liberties Union

In preparing this letter, the ACLU reviewed every Title VII religious accommodation federal decision reported either in an official reporter or on Westlaw--since the Hardison decision in 1977 through December 31, 2002--in which a court reached the question of reasonable accommodation or undue hardship. A quarter-century of reported litigation gives a fairly accurate picture of the full range of cases that employees already win under the current religious accommodation standard, and the cases that employees typically lose under the current standard.[1] Based on that review, the ACLU[2]
has serious concerns about the potential harmful effect of WRFA, but we also see an opportunity for alternative legislation that would have addressed nearly all of the religious accommodation claims that did not involve harm to critical personal and civil rights.

Over the past 25 years, employees have brought an array of claims for employers to accommodate religious practices that would have resulted in harm to critical personal or civil rights. If WRFA had been law, the following rejected religious accommodation claims could have been decided differently:

police officer's request to refuse to protect an abortion clinic,
another police officer's request to abstain from arresting protestors blocking a clinic entrance,
social worker's decision to use Bible readings, prayer, and the ""casting out of demons"" with inmates in a county prison, instead of providing the county's required secular mental health counseling,
state-employed visiting nurse's decision to tell an AIDS patient and his partner that God ""doesn't like the homosexual lifestyle"" and that they needed to pray for salvation,
delivery room nurse's refusal to scrub for an emergency inducement of labor and an emergency caesarian section delivery on women who were in danger of bleeding to death,
two different male truck drivers and a male emergency medical technician request to avoid overnight work shifts with women because they could not sleep in the same quarters with women,
employee assistance counselor's request to refuse to counsel unmarried or gay or lesbian employees on relationship issues,
hotel worker's decision to spray a swastika on a mirror as a religious ""good luck"" symbol,

My apologies if this is too much information.

Seems as though this dog is going to get another day.

This does seem interesting, but it's from the ACLJ site and not sure how accurate it is

Religious Expression in the Workplace | American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

In addition to government workplaces, private workplaces are also constrained by federal law. The law prohibiting religious discrimination in the workplace has been codified under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter “Title VII”). 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer:

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Id. at § 2000e-2 (emphasis added).

Title VII has extremely wide jurisdiction. It applies to the federal government, as well as state and local governments. Id. at §§ 2000e-16, 2000e(a)-(b). In addition, it also applies to private employers. Id. at § 2000e(b). In fact, it defines an employer as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees..." Id. Thus, Title VII applies to virtually all employers in this country.

In order for an employee to be protected under Title VII, he must show that:

He holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement;
He has informed the employer about the conflict; and
He was discharged, disciplined or subjected to discriminatory treatment for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.
 
I have cited this case, the facts, the press release by the EEOC, the law, the damage award, the investigative process required by law of the EEOC and the right and responsibilities of the parties during the investigative process in numerous posts. I respectfully request that you search my posts herein should you wish to gather that information and discuss my position.

Don't need to. I went to the ACLU and the ACLJ site and found what I needed. Seems I worked the shortcuts.
 
I don't think "clothing" should be a constitutional guarantee when it comes to employment. If the employer has a dress code, there is usually a good reason for it. I don't think business just have dress codes and buy uniforms for their employees for the fun of it. IMO, a business should not have to cater to a person's religious beliefs in this way, and if they have a dress code, everyone should have to follow it (unless there are medical reasons), or find another job. I'm sorry, but I don't feel sorry for her. I just don't. :shrug:

If BK was not required to comply with Title VII this would not have been an issue; many businesses are not required to. The wearing of the clothing is a religious obsernace within the meaning of Title VII and is a protected activity.

Regardless of how the observer fells about this person and her activity is a non-issue.
 
What is Burger King uniform colors

Answer:
The new Burger King uniforms consist of


Managers must wear:

Black/Red/Khaki/White dickies-style button down dress shirts, black pants and black slip-resistant shoes.



Crew members must wear :

black burger king polos with red and beige stripes and a burger king visor/baseball cap with black pants and black slip-resistant shoes.


All shirts worn MUST be given by burger king and are produced via King Uniforms.


Read more: What is Burger King uniform colors
 
It seems like a clear violation of the law to me, unless they can show undue hardship.

The equal employment law itself is, of course, an illegitimate infringement on the rights of private businesses. Absurd results like this are the inevitable consequence of such unjust laws.
 
I read the article again, and then I read a couple of other articles about it, and no where does it state that according to her religion she has to wear "skirt." It simply states she has to wear "women's" clothes, and women's pants would fall under the description of "women's" clothes, and I do believe that Burger King would have given her a pair of women's pants to wear; therefore, BK is NOT making her wear men's clothing. So, is she making up her own rules here?
 
I read the article again, and then I read a couple of other articles about it, and no where does it state that according to her religion she has to wear "skirt." It simply states she has to wear "women's" clothes, and women's pants would fall under the description of "women's" clothes, and I do believe that Burger King would have given her a pair of women's pants to wear; therefore, BK is NOT making her wear men's clothing. So, is she making up her own rules here?

No, she isn't. Pentecostals (and even some Baptists) believe that women should not wear pants of any kind.
 
Thanks. Man, am I embarrassed. Shoulda read the article.

Well, it would appear as though a manager would have interviewed her. Seems to be a leg to stand on here, then, doesn't it?

That's exactly the point I made, that she was told specifically by a manager, representing the company, that she could wear a skirt. This really isn't about religious accomodationism, it's about management telling a potential employee that she could violate the dress code and hiring her knowing full well she was going to. You can't tell a person something, then turn around and tell them something else and go "ha ha, fooled you!"
 
Why are those opposed to this woman religious observance and the EEOC"s lawsuit so hard bitten if this woman gets some monetary award. It will not be much in back wages and she will be taxed like anyone for punitive damages or emotional distress. This woman and everyone else has a Constitutionally protected right in freedom of religion and Title VII merely insures that without breaching the Establishment clause. Hypothetically, if the reverse happened where BK was forcing this woman to wear a "habit" or a male to get circumcised in order to work because BK observed one religion or another The same people would be citing these constitutional guarantees.

The BoR's only applies to the government, not the citizens of the government. The fact that they made a law (Title VII) regarding religion is actually against the Constitution.

And No, I would not be citing the Constitutional guarantee's because again, the BoR only applies to the Government. Not the citizens.
 
I get the feeling the girl is looking for a payday. I don't know how much this would effect anything politically, but what do I know?

Oh, she'll get a certain amount and her lawyers will take a majority of it. The only one getting a payday here is the law firm.
 
Don't know for sure. But here is a precedent I did find.

Pentecostal woman wins fight to not wear pants uniform - USATODAY.com

A Pentecostal woman who refused to wear pants as part of her bus driver uniform has prompted the region's transit system to implement new policies to accommodate employees' religious practices.

The woman, Gloria Jones, filed a complaint last September, claiming that she was not hired as a Metro bus operator due to religious discrimination, according to Steven Taubenkibel, spokesman for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

Jones met the qualifications for the position; however, she declined to wear the pants required for the uniform because of her Apostolic Pentecostal faith. She made a verbal request to be allowed to wear a skirt, and Metro terminated her application.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a settlement between Jones and the transit agency, which agreed to pay her more than $47,000, according to the Associated Press. The agency also agreed to pay $2,500 to two others who said Metro didn't accommodate their beliefs.

The agency will also be implementing new procedures to better accommodate employee's religious practices, including the creation of a request form and training for supervisors on the issue.

"The agency is going to work within reasonable efforts to accommodate employees," said Taubenkibel, explaining that each request will be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Jones can now reapply for the position, and if hired, would need to request an exemption to the uniform policy, a Metro spokeswoman said.

The Orthodox Union, the nation's largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization, said the proposed Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which has been stalled in Congress, would help provide a "single, balanced national standard for the protection of religious freedom."

. . .

Hey, if I declare myself to be a nudist and that is my religion, think it'll pass muster on this Title VII deal at BK? ;)
 
The first amendment says no one can interfere with a person's religious freedom.

It says nothing of the sort. It says *CONGRESS* will make no laws, last I checked, Burger King was not Congress.
 
Just because she says it is doesn't mean that it is.



I'm pretty sure that the rest of the story validates my point that she said it was and it's turning out to be just that.
 
It says nothing of the sort. It says *CONGRESS* will make no laws, last I checked, Burger King was not Congress.

Right....and those are based on the laws under Title VII with regard to discrimination.
 
Right....and those are based on the laws under Title VII with regard to discrimination.

I was responding to something that specifically said the First Amendment.
 
Does BK have a requirement that pants must be worn? All I've found so far is their non-skid shoes requirement.

Every BK franchise may be a bit different.

I tend to think that wearing a skirt is not an unreasonable accomodation. It's not like she's a Hindu and has religious objections to cooking or serving beef. That would be unreasonable given that beef is BK's core business.
 
Back
Top Bottom