• 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

No they are not over reacting. I ya want to work at a burger king this is the uniform you wear, and its pants. There are plenty of things I wish I could say or do that I do not because I work with the developmentally disabled.

We have choices to make based on our employment. If YOU want to work at their establishment than YOU will dress accordingly, or go work somewhere else, and wear your skirt or whatever.

Let her have the skirt and everyone else will say I want my nose ring, want my gauges. Burger King should reserve the right to have its employees dress and look the way they wish. If someone dsagrees don't f-ing work there. There are plenty of people who are looking for work who care far more about the money than what they look like while they are working.


Again... there is no reasonable justification for a business refusing to make MINOR accomodations to dress code for the sake of deeply held religious beliefs that will not impede someone's ability to do their job.


There's no reason to refuse a Jew the right to wear a yamulka if it won't impair his ability to work safety.

There's no reason to deny a Penecostal woman the right to wear a long skirt if it won't impair her ability to work safely.


No reason at all.... other than just hateful dick-ishness.
 
There was no rational reason for BK to not let her wear the skirt, and the manager said she could wear it. BK was in the wrong here, and they are just being dicks, period.

There's no rational reason to want to work at a place that you know will require you to dress a certain way either.
 
Again... there is no reasonable justification for a business refusing to make MINOR accomodations to dress code for the sake of deeply held religious beliefs that will not impede someone's ability to do their job.


There's no reason to refuse a Jew the right to wear a yamulka if it won't impair his ability to work safety.

There's no reason to deny a Penecostal woman the right to wear a long skirt if it won't impair her ability to work safely.


No reason at all.... other than just hateful dick-ishness.

This, even if it is the companies right to do so(which I'm not entirely sure it is), there is no question that they are in the wrong morally. That they are being douchebags, and this is coming from someone that the individual belief in question is silly, stupid, and just has nothing to do with morality in general.
 
You're confusing me woman! Why wouldn't it be permissible for her to work there?

LOL - sorry, I'm just analyzing my church-upbringing with her church-existence and seeing differences. LOL
 
There's no rational reason to want to work at a place that you know will require you to dress a certain way either.

She addressed that in the interview, and the manager said it was okay. What else was she supposed to do?
 
There's no rational reason to want to work at a place that you know will require you to dress a certain way either.


She says the interviewer told her she could wear the skirt.

Verbal contract.



Dude, think about it... employers can be damn near as oppressive as any dictatorial government. The dictator has you in his palm because he has the Secret Police and all that crap... the EMPLOYER has you by the purse strings, by the way you make your living and pay your bills and support your family. The economy is bad and jobs are hard to come by.... and let me tell ya, lots of employers are seizing this opportunity to squeeze their employees as hard as they can, and pile as much stupid control-freak **** on them as they can get away with.... and that is a LOT because so many people are desperate to keep their jobs.

If you're for freedom, you need to recognize that we need to prevent ALL big orgs from abusing the individual needlessly, whether those orgs are governmental or corporate.
 
The rational reason is that it violated company policy. She shouldnt be allowed to force a business to change their policies because of her beliefs. I would agree that it would be no real harm in letting her wear the skirt, but also no real harm in allowing people to wear their street clothes at work, or a number of other things. They have a written policy stating their dress code. I dont see where they put anything in writing allowing her the exception. We dont even know they actually even said she could wear it, and even if they did they have the right to enforce the policy. Dicks or not, they have that right and they are not discriminating against her religion. She is trying to force it on them..

Pretty much. You go on their property, you take one of their jobs, you play by their rules and that usually includes a dress code of some sort. I guess a dress code is shocking to some people though.
 
This, even if it is the companies right to do so(which I'm not entirely sure it is), there is no question that they are in the wrong morally. That they are being douchebags, and this is coming from someone that the individual belief in question is silly, stupid, and just has nothing to do with morality in general.


I don't agree with the Pentecostals on the whole skirts vs pants things either... but it matters a lot to this woman and I don't see any harm in it, so I agree BK is just being a corporate douche about it.


A lot of employers are being FAR more dictatorial towards employees in recent years than was the case when the economy was booming.... because they CAN, since most people are desperate to keep their jobs. Back when unemployement fell below 4% and employers were DESPERATE to fill positions with warm bodies, THEY were a lot more accomodating and open handed towards individual employees... now it is squeeze-the-turnip time.

They're dicks.
 
I side with the employee here.

BK expressly set forth the dress code...Bk allowed the employee to dress in a manner that would respect the employee's religion. There was never a problem regarding this during the hiring process. The prospective employee fully informed BK that she would need to dress in a manner which respected her religious beliefs. BK agreed to this.

It was after the girl was hired that BK changed their position and thereby acted in a manner which speak to religious discrimination. The employee attempted to contact the various managers and her phone calls were never returned.

The following is a press release from the EEOC in this matter.

Grand Prairie Burger King Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination
Teen Employee Fired for Refusing to Comply with Company Dress Code, Federal Agency Charges

DALLAS – Fries Restaurant Management, LLC, the owners / operators of a Grand Prairie, Texas Burger King, violated federal law by firing a cashier on her first day of work because of her religion, Christian Pentecostal, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, (Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-03169-M), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Ashanti McShan, a member of the Pentecostal Church, adheres to an interpretation of the scripture about the wearing of clothing that is befitting of specific gender. She informed the company of this aspect of her faith during the job interview, and was told that she could work in a skirt instead of the Burger King uniform pants. However, the EEOC said, when Ms. McShan arrived at orientation, she was told by store management that her skirt was an unacceptable alternative and subsequently sent home. McShan’s calls to higher management went unreturned and she was never asked to return to work, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief to ensure that no further discrimination takes place.

“Accommodating Ms. McShan’s religious beliefs would have been simple and cost the company nothing,” said EEOC Trial Attorney Meaghan Shepard. “Management’s failure to comply with federal law deprived this teenage girl of the opportunity to work during her senior year of high school.”

Regional Attorney Robert A. Canino of the EEOC’s Dallas District Office added, “We haven’t come far enough in our respect of religious liberties at the workplace if we have employers saying that uniform policies trump a religious observance without articulation of any hardship posed by letting an employee ‘hold the pickles’ and ‘hold the lettuce’ while wearing a skirt.”

In fiscal year 2011, more than 4,000 charges of religious discrimination were filed with the EEOC nationwide.
Grand Prairie Burger King Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination
 
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:

Risky Disclaimer: My personal lawyer experience is limited to divorce. :mrgreen: I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking I know what I'm talking about, as if I were some legal sumbitch. Is "legal sumbitch" one word? :lamo Should be.

IMHO the issue will be whether the lady was informed or not prior to employment. How do they determine a he said/she said? I have no idea.

As far as I am concerned, the only people with rock solid credentials in solving a he said/she said arguments are moms. Somehow moms know that ****. My mom could cut through that sort of thing with my brothers and me in a second. Same with my ex-wife and my kids.

I do have experience with EEOC due to a guy I once had to fire. Long story. I liked the guy. His brother was a legalsumbitch and advised my former employee to file with EEOC. The guy lost. It was a rotten experience for all involved. Even I knew the complaint had zero chance.

Just because EEOC accepts the complaint doesn't mean it is going anywhere. I can't imagine that BK hasn't been down this road before. Of course we don't know if the store in question was corporate or franchised and we don't know the legal support, yada yada, BK would provide a franchisee in this situation.

It will be interesting if we ever hear how the complaint is resolved, as apparently nothing involving the employee's attire and BK's dress code was put in writing.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much. You go on their property, you take one of their jobs, you play by their rules and that usually includes a dress code of some sort. I guess a dress code is shocking to some people though.

The company's unwillingness to allow a MINOR variation that will make no functional difference to accomodate a religious belief that is extremely important to this woman, is shocking.

Well not shocking... I've seen firsthand what douchebags employers can be especially in recent years. For frack's sake it's not like she's insisting on working naked in high heels to please the Almighty Zarquon or something. :roll:
 
Pretty much. You go on their property, you take one of their jobs, you play by their rules and that usually includes a dress code of some sort. I guess a dress code is shocking to some people though.

Suppose their rules included sucking the boss' dick once a week?

Just because it is their company does not mean they get to dictate everything their way. People have rights and they don't give them up just to be employed.
 
There's no rational reason to want to work at a place that you know will require you to dress a certain way either.


Second that.

But sadly that's how the human mind of some works. They are bent on doing what they are not allowed to do.


and then they sue.... oh joy!
 
What I keep thinking about is the safety issue. I just wonder which is safer, a long skirt or pants?
 
The company's unwillingness to allow a MINOR variation that will make no functional difference to accomodate a religious belief that is extremely important to this woman, is shocking.

The company did then changed their minds...
 
There's no rational reason to want to work at a place that you know will require you to dress a certain way either.

That is not the case in this instance
 
What I keep thinking about is the safety issue. I just wonder which is safer, a long skirt or pants?

A whole lotta moms wore long skirts in the kitchen cooking for centuries, and I dont recall ever hearing that it was a safety hazard as opposed to pants.
 
I don't agree with the Pentecostals on the whole skirts vs pants things either... but it matters a lot to this woman and I don't see any harm in it, so I agree BK is just being a corporate douche about it.


A lot of employers are being FAR more dictatorial towards employees in recent years than was the case when the economy was booming.... because they CAN, since most people are desperate to keep their jobs. Back when unemployement fell below 4% and employers were DESPERATE to fill positions with warm bodies, THEY were a lot more accomodating and open handed towards individual employees... now it is squeeze-the-turnip time.

They're dicks.

i understand that there is no harm in it, but when we start letting religious practices dictate our businesses things are going to get ugly. It is not discrimination to require the same things for all employees. She was not discriminated against. That is equal. To give her special rights would be unfair to the next guy who wants to wear a cowboy hat instead of a baseball bk cap. That wouldnt hurt anything either. soon you'd have every employee with their own dress code and there is no need of that. BK management may be dicks, but they are not doing anything actually wrong......even morally. THis makes business sense.
 
Good point Goshin

I would note her religion is being silly though as to them being Male clothes. IN some civilizations skirts are male clothes (scots) and when Hemingway saw Greek casualties in some war he wrote about soldiers in "ballet skirts" because Greek elites wore what would appear to be tutus with white hose.

but nonetheless, as someone who practices employment discrimination law, Title VII requires reasonable accommodations and that is a reasonable accommodation because it does not interfere with a seniority system (a junior employee requiring saturdays off due to religion can sometimes run up against a bona fide seniority system) or a safety issue (BK is hardly a factory where long skirts might be hazardous-it was WWII and women working in factories that made trousers a female fashion staple)

so I think BK will lose this one
 
The company's unwillingness to allow a MINOR variation that will make no functional difference to accomodate a religious belief that is extremely important to this woman, is shocking.

Well not shocking... I've seen firsthand what douchebags employers can be especially in recent years. For frack's sake it's not like she's insisting on working naked in high heels to please the Almighty Zarquon or something. :roll:

Though that should be respected and allowed, obviously. :mrgreen:
 
i understand that there is no harm in it, but when we start letting religious practices dictate our businesses things are going to get ugly. It is not discrimination to require the same things for all employees. She was not discriminated against. That is equal. To give her special rights would be unfair to the next guy who wants to wear a cowboy hat instead of a baseball bk cap. That wouldnt hurt anything either. soon you'd have every employee with their own dress code and there is no need of that. BK management may be dicks, but they are not doing anything actually wrong......even morally. THis makes business sense.




So you're saying you prefer to let businesses dictate to people over their individual conscience, even when accomodating them would do no harm... really?
 
Suppose their rules included sucking the boss' dick once a week?

Just because it is their company does not mean they get to dictate everything their way. People have rights and they don't give them up just to be employed.

That is absurd and I will not treat it as serious.
 
Political correctness will be the ruin of this world.

Sad but true.
 
This is mostly on the hiring manager that told the girl she'd be accommodated. Had she said before the girl was hired that policy dictated that all employees wear the uniform (keeping in mind that image and presentation can make or break a customer service experience), and that she'd have to comply with that policy if she wanted to work, I'd be fully behind the employer. There's a big difference between a dress code and a uniform, in my mind. If employees adhere to a dress code, then uniformity isn't valued and wearing something out of the ordinary for religious purposes isn't a big deal. With a uniform, the whole point is that everyone looks the same. Allowing breach of the uniform defeats the purpose of a uniform.
 
Back
Top Bottom