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

Goshin said:

I'm going to have to walk away from this before I lose my temper.

I'm very passionate about this subject, because I have seen FAR too many people abused by their employer, and feel like they had to just "take it" because they feared they could not find another job that would pay adequately. I've had to comfort too many crying female employees who'd been badly mistreated by their boss to find this at all amusing. I've seen too many people fired, losing their livelihood, for total bull**** that amounted to "didn't kiss the boss' ass nicely enough", who spent months or in some cases YEARS trying to find a decent job in the aftermath.

I guess some of you have been lucky not to have to deal with crap like this, but if you haven't seen it I'm telling you it is everywhere these days.

No one should be allowed to abuse, mistreat or trample the rights of a citizen just because they are an employer.

On that note, g'nite.

Click to expand...

That's the same attitude I get when talking about guns carried by employees. People think that employers can just walk allover employees.

Risky Thicket said:

The way I view the issue is that there are actually two arguments being made:

1. Religious workplace accommodation - the employee in question's position.

2. Corporate policy - in this instance, dress code.

Truthfully, I don't think most people here or in the general public care one way or the other if a fast food worker is wearing a long dress and/or if it was for religious reasons. I don't eat fast food, but when I did, I don't ever recall looking at a worker's pants or dress. Who looks to see what they have on? In terms of pants or dress, who really cares? I don't.

On the BK side, I can see where a dress could be a safety issue.

I could also see where the franchisee and/or BK may not really give a rat's ass about this particular issue, but looking at the broader picture, they don't want to set a precedent.

Religious fundamentalists - all religions have a fundie fringe - are ripping the world apart. Pick a country. It's certainly happening here in the U.S. If you are BK do where do you want to draw the line? I don't know. But, maybe BK has decided to try to draw the line here, with the case in the OP.

Click to expand...

I believe in God, but I don't think God cares whether or not I wear pants or a skirt.

Connery said:

I see a common thread with these two precepts and religion. Section 307 of the ADA serves the purpose of preventing government interference with religion. Title VII preserves the free exercise of religion and does not run counter to the Establishment clause as it limits applicability of Title VII to certain situations and requirements.

Click to expand...

Ever been to a Buddhist temple or church? As a Buddhist, I can tell you from experience most Buddhist temples have no money. LOL! Sure, some do, but most are far from having money. If they had to accommodate people with disabilities under the ADA Buddhism would barely survive in the U.S.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 10 years as Boomers hit retirement age full force. Will religious organizations see a resurgence in membership? If so, will they accommodate a suddenly huge demographic of disabled people?

Jerry said:

That's the same attitude I get when talking about guns carried by employees. People think that employers can just walk allover employees.

Click to expand...

What I allow on my property is my business and if I don't want guns on my property you will not carry them on my property. Property trumps gun rights 100% of the time.

Why? Because of the definition of ownership.

Ownership - the right and act of controlling something.

This gives the property owner the right to control access and use of such property. In this case I said no to guns on my property.

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....

Risky Thicket said:

Ever been to a Buddhist temple or church? As a Buddhist, I can tell you from experience most Buddhist temples have no money. LOL! Sure, some do, but most are far from having money. If they had to accommodate people with disabilities under the ADA Buddhism would barely survive in the U.S.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 10 years as Boomers hit retirement age full force. Will religious organizations see a resurgence in membership? If so, will they accommodate a suddenly huge demographic of disabled people?

Click to expand...

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?

ChrisL said:

I believe in God, but I don't think God cares whether or not I wear pants or a skirt.

Click to expand...

your G_d may not care but she believes it is important to her G_d to abide by what she understands to be his expectations. and one of those is to not wear what is taken to be men's clothing, such as pants
this is America, where we tolerate religious differences

ChrisL said:

I believe in God, but I don't think God cares whether or not I wear pants or a skirt.

Click to expand...

Do you mind if I prefer you wear neither?

Kidding aside, religious fundamentalism by definition is obsessed with affectation. Does a God, Yahweh, Allah, the Cosmos, pick one, really care if woman wears pants? Of course not.

Goshin said:

Many Pentecostals believe it to be a VERY grevious offense against God for a women to wear pants, regardless of the reason why.

They should accomodate her on this. It's not a big deal for them, but it is huge to her.

Click to expand...

I agree that the fast food chain should accommodate her but I support their right to set the rules when it comes to uniforms. I rebuke government involvement in issues like this where the employee is told what the conditions of employment are but decides to accept employment in a place that has a dress code they don’t approve of. This has become another lawyer scheme to blackmail all of us into paying more for our food or ___ (fill in the blank) so they can get rich while pretending to be outraged over something that most of us actually support.

Henrin said:

What I allow on my property is my business and if I don't want guns on my property you will not carry them on my property. Property trumps gun rights 100% of the time.

Why? Because of the definition of ownership.

Ownership - the right and act of controlling something.

This gives the property owner the right to control access and use of such property. In this case I said no to guns on my property.

Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that when we both approach eachother with the entitlement mentality, we can't solve the problem ourselves and it ends up in court.

Folks on both sides of this thread topic are taking the entitlement mentality. IMO the teen didn't need to sue, and, BK could very, very easily allow a skirt.

All this fuss over a job which doesn't matter anyway. BK replaces cashiers all the time, and teens replace fast-food jobs all the time. There was no harm don to the teen, and there wouldn't have been any harm don to BK.

It's all a non issue, but that never stops DP from getting all puffed up anyway.

Goshin said:

No more uncalled for than telling you to keep your anti-religious crap at home, bud. Or to leave your dignity at home, or your whatever.

There are rules about how employers can treat employees... get over it. They are employees, NOT SLAVES.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Slaves have no lawful choice about the matter. They cannot quit if the job demands that they violate their conscience. They have no liberty. Instead the owner can beat or kill them. This woman was free to either wear pants, or not work at Burger King. She apparently chose the latter through her refusal to actually perform the job for which her employer was paying her.

You weaken your case (which is stronger if you stick to equal enforcement of the law) when you engage in moral hyperbole. Burger King is not engaged in human trafficking because they insist their employees wear pants.

justabubba said:

your G_d may not care but she believes it is important to her G_d to abide by what she understands to be his expectations. and one of those is to not wear what is taken to be men's clothing, such as pants
this is America, where we tolerate religious differences

Click to expand...

There is a difference between "tolerate" and "accomodate or you get sued".

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...

If the basis of the suit is correct and she was assured the skirt would be allowed by the manager before the hire, I think she would be clearly in the right.

Otherwise, ultimately, you're right, but I don't see an obvious safety or food sanitation advantage in wearing pants over a skirt.

Sidestreamer said:

If the basis of the suit is correct and she was assured the skirt would be allowed by the manager before the hire, I think she would be clearly in the right.

Otherwise, ultimately, you're right, but I don't see an obvious safety or food sanitation advantage in wearing pants over a skirt.

Click to expand...

What does food sanitation have to do with anything? I don't even understand why people are resorting to that. As if BK needs another reason other than a standardized dress code in order to make its employees wear pants over skirts.

Sidestreamer said:

If the basis of the suit is correct and she was assured the skirt would be allowed by the manager before the hire, I think she would be clearly in the right.

Otherwise, ultimately, you're right, but I don't see an obvious safety or food sanitation advantage in wearing pants over a skirt.

Click to expand...

I was once hired as a tech at a casino and I was upfront about my criminal record. I was told that it would not be a problem. 3 months later I was fired because of my record.

Moral of the story: Just because a manager tells you you can do something it does not mean that they cannot later rescind what they said.

Goshin said:

Yeah, I think they're overreacting and misinterpreting myself... but it's what they believe and it is very important to them.

It would be VERY little, if ANY, skin off BK's nose to just let her wear the skirt.

Click to expand...

Only if she signs a waiver detailing that she gives up all rights to sue BK in the event of an accident where pants would have prevented or lessened an injury.

obvious Child said:

Only if she signs a waiver detailing that she gives up all rights to sue BK in the event of an accident where pants would have prevented or lessened an injury.

Click to expand...

LOL no, more like BK either cooperates or they get sued. No waivers, we go to litigation and BK spends more on settling out of court then they would have spent on this young lady's wages and printing a memo allowing skirts. No waiver either way.

This entitlement mentality is only going to get real business owners in more and more trouble.

justabubba said:

your G_d may not care but she believes it is important to her G_d to abide by what she understands to be his expectations. and one of those is to not wear what is taken to be men's clothing, such as pants
this is America, where we tolerate religious differences

Click to expand...

yes we have absolute tolerance for religious differences. this is why it is legal if you are christian or jewish to own slaves as the bible says you should. It is also legal to beat your wife and kids, and actually necessary to do so if you are a christian. Let us not forget it is legal to stone people who practice other religions if you are a christian. yes, we are absolutely tolerant of everything that happens in your religion.

Now lets step back into reality. No, just because you practice a religion does not mean you get to define working policy for places. If you are capable and willing to do the job as they require then you should be considered. in this case she clearly was not willing to follow the dress code. just like any place with a dress code if i don't want to wear their uniform I can chose to go elsewhere. Just because she is a christian does not mean she gets to decide what their dress code is. If they fired her for dressing in a manner that others were allowed then she would have a case, but since the uniform is applied universally and she was informed of that then she has no discrimination case. The uniform is not there to piss off her religion. it is there so that all employees are recognizeable as employees, and to provide a uniform presentation by all of the staff in burger king. It is not prejudiced, it is simply their presentation and she can go elsewhere if she cannot comply.

her suit is bull**** and it will be nice when she is slapped with a bill for burger king's legal expenses for her failed lawsuit.

Jerry said:

LOL no, more like BK either cooperates or they get sued. No waivers, we go to litigation and BK spends more on settling out of court then they would have spent on this young lady's wages and printing a memo allowing skirts. No waiver either way.

This entitlement mentality is only going to get real business owners in more and more trouble.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but BK can argue that the pants in the uniform are designed for worker safety. That is a decent argument and if the employee is willing to sign a waiver on any personal injury for not following the uniform, I see no problem here. BK can win the PR war at the same time accommodating the religious beliefs.

Furthermore, if BK gives in, this is not a good sign for business. Basically any religious belief, crazy or otherwise trumps all regulations a business creates.

The notion that religious beliefs trumps an owner's right to do as his pleases within reason in his business bothers me. What's next? Ban pork because Jews and Muslims find it unkosher/unhalal?

Jerry said:

LOL no, more like BK either cooperates or they get sued. No waivers, we go to litigation and BK spends more on settling out of court then they would have spent on this young lady's wages and printing a memo allowing skirts. No waiver either way.

This entitlement mentality is only going to get real business owners in more and more trouble.

Click to expand...

the nice thing is that today you get to pay the opponent's legal expenses when you make obviously wrong lawsuits.

i say we all support burger King in their fight to deny the fascism of religious fascists. next wednesday everyone should eat burger king to show their support of telling christians you don't own the world. i was looking for somewhere to spend all that money I was not spending at chik fil a.

obvious Child said:

Perhaps, but BK can argue that the pants in the uniform are designed for worker safety. That is a decent argument and if the employee is willing to sign a waiver on any personal injury for not following the uniform, I see no problem here. BK can win the PR war at the same time accommodating the religious beliefs.

Furthermore, if BK gives in, this is not a good sign for business. Basically any religious belief, crazy or otherwise trumps all regulations a business creates.

The notion that religious beliefs trumps an owner's right to do as his pleases within reason in his business bothers me. What's next? Ban pork because Jews and Muslims find it unkosher/unhalal?

Click to expand...

they just need one argument. this is the women's uniform so she was not wearing men's clothing.

Kal'Stang said:

I was once hired as a tech at a casino and I was upfront about my criminal record. I was told that it would not be a problem. 3 months later I was fired because of my record.

Moral of the story: Just because a manager tells you you can do something it does not mean that they cannot later rescind what they said.

Click to expand...

yes, because we all know the guy hiring at the local burger king speaks for the owners of that franchise and can make any rules he wants.

All that aside, where the hell is this girl's father? he is clearly ignoring the strict word of the bible which says he needs to either beat his daughter, or stone her to death. They follow the strict view of the bible so they should follow all of it and not just the rules they want. perhaps since the father failed to discipline her society should step in and stone her as per the bible? We wouldn't want her to miss the stoning she says she deserves and go to hell for her transgressions. I love all these religious nuts when they want something that is comfortable for them, but when the actual sacrifice is required of them then she is just a 17 year old american girl protected by the laws she wishes she did not have to follow.

If they let her get away with this i am starting up a religion for trannies where it is against the religion for person born male to wear pants, or a person born female to wear a skirt or dress.

BK is a private business. 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.

obvious Child said:

Furthermore, if BK gives in, this is not a good sign for business. Basically any religious belief, crazy or otherwise trumps all regulations a business creates.

Click to expand...

Your slope, it's slippery.

Risky Thicket said:

Ever been to a Buddhist temple or church? As a Buddhist, I can tell you from experience most Buddhist temples have no money. LOL! Sure, some do, but most are far from having money. If they had to accommodate people with disabilities under the ADA Buddhism would barely survive in the U.S.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 10 years as Boomers hit retirement age full force. Will religious organizations see a resurgence in membership? If so, will they accommodate a suddenly huge demographic of disabled people?

Click to expand...

Religious organizations are exempt from the ADA in section 307. These organizations can comply and many do as the attendance at these religious groups by members and their families may be contingent upon them having access as a matter of course, but , not as a matter of law.