• 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

Kal'Stang said:
But they didn't violate TITLE VII as she was fired for not conforming to the dress code before the guy knew about her religion. Is Title VII not suppose to stop discrimination of someones religion? How can there be discrimination if the one that did the firing had no clue as to her religious beliefs at the time he told her to go home? How can it be discrimination if the employee was just enforcing a companies decades old policy that was made because the employer saw that having a dress code was good for buisness? IE the policy was made with no regard to religion. There is absolutely no evidence that we have seen were this womans religion was discriminated against.
Click to expand...

well that is a good point-for example if someone is fired and they are jewish but the responsible management official didn't know that then the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The fact of this case will need investigation
 
Risky Thicket said:
And honestly, y'all, this isn't about religion. It's about dress code and whether or not a interviewee was properly informed about a dress code requirement before being hired. Unless it is covered in writing it's down to two people and who said or didn't say what about wearing a dress.

I haven't read any statement where BK discussed religion with her. From what I understand she says she brought it up, but I have read anything where BK made any disparaging remarks about her religion.
Click to expand...

Once again I will post these facts: "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"

Grand Prairie Burger King Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination

Kindly note the investigative procedures done by the EEOC in order to issue any type of determination. It is an intensive fact finding mission according to statute and procedure. The EEOC rarely files on behalf of an individual, indeed, they issue a "Right To Sue" letter and lets the individual file.


Possible Dismissal
If the EEOC does not have jurisdiction, or if your charge is untimely, we will close your charge quickly. We may also close your charge quickly if we decide that we probably will not be able to find discrimination. If your charge is dismissed, you will be notified.

Investigation
How we investigate a charge depends on the facts of the case and the kinds of information we need to gather. In some cases, we visit the employer to hold interviews and gather documents. In other cases, we interview witnesses over the phone and ask for documents by mail. After we finish our investigation, we will let you and the employer know the result.

How long the investigation takes depends on a lot of different things, including the amount of information that needs to be gathered and analyzed. It took us – on average – nearly 6 months to investigate a charge in 2004. We are often able to settle a charge faster through mediation (usually in less than 3 months).

Subpoena
If an employer refuses to cooperate with an EEOC investigation, EEOC can issue an administrative subpoena to obtain documents, testimony or gain access to facilities.

Possible Action After Investigation Completed
If we haven’t found a violation of the law, we will send you a Notice-of-Right-to-Sue. This notice gives you permission to file a lawsuit in a court of law. If we find a violation, we will try to reach a voluntary settlement with the employer. If we cannot reach a settlement, your case will be referred to our legal staff (or the Department of Justice in certain cases), who will decide whether or not the agency should file a lawsuit. If we decide not to file a lawsuit, we will give you a Notice-of-Right-to-Sue.
Click to expand...
The Charge Handling Process
 
Omgitsme said:
If someones religious beliefs interfere with their ability to do the job then they can be fired.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but I'm not stupid enough to hire someone who is going to likely be fired. That's not fair to the employee nor to the business. You hire people to stay, not to leave. Firing people also costs you money.

Personally, I don't care what religion anyone practices as long as they practice it away from my business. Employees must conform to a dress code, which being Arizona is very casual. I make the decisions, along with the board of directors, as to the direction the business with take. It is to our business advantage not to project any religious preference or support. Our clients' religious preferences are their private business and I don't care. I really don't. I don't want to offend them personally or professionally. What would be the point in that?

If the most talented and most qualified person ever interviewed applies for a job opening with an OM symbol tattooed on his hand and the guy is dressed like the Dalia Lama he's not getting the job. It is not the imagine we work to project.
 
hazlnut said:
Do you have deep pockets? If so, lawyers call you a payday.
Click to expand...
Everyone seems to think that, because you have a lot of corperations that are ******s to be frank. I dont back off, and jury trials really are crap shoots. They are also expensive. Lawyers realise this and generally try to settle. It also helps I am not a national entity.
 
Your Star said:
They stated that they would be fine with it. Then they went back on their word, they were being assholes about a minor thing. Period.
Click to expand...

One person said that she could. And no one has yet to show whether this person had the authority to change company policy or not. And AGAIN the person that sent her home did not know about her religion. Nor did he care about it one way or another. He was just enforcing company policy.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I don't know about you, but I'm not stupid enough to hire someone who is going to likely be fired. That's not fair to the employee nor to the business. You hire people to stay, not to leave. Firing people also costs you money.

Personally, I don't care what religion anyone practices as long as they practice it away from my business. Employees must conform to a dress code, which being Arizona is very casual. I make the decisions, along with the board of directors, as to the direction the business with take. It is to our business advantage not to project any religious preference or support. Our clients' religious preferences are their private business and I don't care. I really don't. I don't want to offend them personally or professionally. What would be the point in that?

If the most talented and most qualified person ever interviewed applies for a job opening with an OM symbol tattooed on his hand and the guy is dressed like the Dalia Lama he's not getting the job. It is not the imagine we work to project.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about hiring people who are likely to be fired? If during the hiring process you feel like their religion is going to interfere with their job then dont hire them. In this case wearing a skirt isnt going to interfere with her job performance nor does it look unprofessional nor is a skirt a religious article of clothing.
 
Kal'Stang said:
One person said that she could. And no one has yet to show whether this person had the authority to change company policy or not. And AGAIN the person that sent her home did not know about her religion. Nor did he care about it one way or another. He was just enforcing company policy.
Click to expand...

How could he have known about her religion when she brought it up? The fact that they can't make a simple accommodation just proves that they are assholes with no thought to understanding.
 
Connery said:
Once again I will post these facts: "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"

Grand Prairie Burger King Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination

Kindly note the investigative procedures done by the EEOC in order to issue any type of determination. It is an intensive fact finding mission according to statute and procedure. The EEOC rarely files on behalf of an individual, indeed, they issue a "Right To Sue" letter and lets the individual file.



The Charge Handling Process
Click to expand...

Thanks, I've read them several times. I'm aware of the EEOC SOPs. I also know from personal experience that the EEOC can be hobbled by its own people, on several levels, over months of investigation, up to and including case manager and EEOC attorneys. In one instance it was a blatant misinterpretation of the law, and in another it was its own complete ignorance and non-complaince of civil law. I'm not an attorney, and even though I am a victim Southern education I somehow learned to read.

The complaint is not about religion and it will not be determined on the basis of religion.
 
Your Star said:
And you'll lose. Have fun with that.
Click to expand...

Lost several actually. Won some too. You should see my battles with cal osha. They have regulations in place that were actually harmful to my people. Believe me when I say this, there are times and places to make stands. Most people wont and thats why we have the mess we have.
 
Omgitsme said:
Who said anything about hiring people who are likely to be fired? If during the hiring process you feel like their religion is going to interfere with their job then dont hire them. In this case wearing a skirt isnt going to interfere with her job performance nor does it look unprofessional nor is a skirt a religious article of clothing.
Click to expand...

I said "anything about hiring people who are likely to be fired". If during the hiring process I feel like fundamentalism is going to interfere with my business I won't hire them. Agreed.

My position is that if BK has a dress code and if she was informed prior to her employment that she must conform to that dress code as a condition of employment then she conforms or she doesn't work. That is the sum total of my position.

-----

As to a dress not being an article of religious clothing; it is moot in my opinion.
 
Jerry said:
You comply with federal and state law or you're fined and/or lose your bushiness license. Pretty simple concept.
Click to expand...

They have already tried. Not so easy when you fight back. If you want screw with the goverment all you need is one lawyer. Dont need an army of when one will do just as well. Most people dont seem to understand that when they go up agianst their goverment. They see all the money and resources and just say its impossible. Money dont mean jack once your in a courtroom with 12 jurors. Its not only possible its probable you can win against them.
 
Your Star said:
How could he have known about her religion when she brought it up? The fact that they can't make a simple accommodation just proves that they are assholes with no thought to understanding.
Click to expand...

Why should they have to make an accomodation? Because the law says so? I think we both know how you feel about that perspective. So why should they have to make an accomodation? Does she not bear some kind of accountability in this? She is the one that applied for the job after all.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I said "anything about hiring people who are likely to be fired". If during the hiring process I feel like fundamentalism is going to interfere with my business I won't hire them. Agreed.

My position is that if BK has a dress code and if she was informed prior to her employment that she must conform to that dress code as a condition of employment then she conforms or she doesn't work. That is the sum total of my position.

-----

As to a dress not being an article of religious clothing; it is moot in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Agree with most of that statement. But I dont believe you should have to conform to a dress code that violates your religion unless it interferes with job performance to not do so.
 
Connery said:
Once again I will post these facts: "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"

Grand Prairie Burger King Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination

Kindly note the investigative procedures done by the EEOC in order to issue any type of determination. It is an intensive fact finding mission according to statute and procedure. The EEOC rarely files on behalf of an individual, indeed, they issue a "Right To Sue" letter and lets the individual file.



The Charge Handling Process
Click to expand...

So the EEOC is never wrong? They're always right?
 
If your religion requires a certain mode of dress, it makes sense not to apply for a job where that requirement will be compromised. This smacks of Christianist jihad by lawsuit.
 
Omgitsme said:
Agree with most of that statement. But I dont believe you should have to conform to a dress code that violates your religion unless it interferes with job performance to not do so.
Click to expand...

Would you apply for a job at a place where you knew that they had a policy that violated your beliefs?

I've asked this same question a dozen times over in this thread and no one has given me a sufficiant, valid answer.

Does this girl not have any accountability for her actions? Can she not make decisions as to where she works? And don't give me the whole speild about job scarcity. The girl was 17 years old. No doubt still living with her parents which provided and cared for her.
 
Your Star said:
False, business's can not discriminate against race, gender identity ,religion, sexual orientation, they can't have a sign outside that says "Blacks enter through the back", they'd be shut down faster than Steve Downie trying to deke around Nicklas Lidstrom.
Click to expand...

The fourteenth amendment is not the civil right bill that deals with this matter and from my understanding you were confusing the two.

If you really want to get all pissy about it then you should be aware that the provision violates property rights blatantly and is an obvious violation of the Constitution.

The excuse that was used was the commerce clause, however, its pretty obvious that it fails on all fronts. Its not trade between the listed members, its not a trade dispute, there is nothing at all to keep regular between the members listed, its the practice of an owner practicing his rights of ownership.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
How could he have known about her religion when she brought it up? The fact that they can't make a simple accommodation just proves that they are assholes with no thought to understanding.
Click to expand...

This might be a really weird concept for you, but people have the right to be assholes.
 
Well, I couldn't find any religions that require members to wear tank tops. :) I did find this OSHA letter. There is a recommendation in here about employees in a kitchen wearing pants and sleeves to avoid burns, cuts, etc. I don't know if it means anything though. I do know that most long skirts are either loose and flowing or tight and constrict leg movement a bit though.

02/23/2011 - Safety hazards associated with wearing skirts in a restaurant setting.

"Unfortunately, OSHA cannot provide a more specific answer to your inquiry due to the limited amount of information provided. The degree of exposure to restaurant kitchen hazards depends on, among other factors, the work the employee is performing and the characteristics of the employee's clothing. Employees may be exposed to sharp objects and hot surfaces and substances, and risk being cut and burned. The exposure of a greater amount of skin, whether from shorts, short skirts, or short sleeves, can increase the likelihood and severity of burns from splashing hot substances. The more loose-fitting the clothing is, meanwhile, the greater the potential for the clothing to catch fire or become caught in a machine. Regardless of the potential hazard, exposure also depends upon job responsibilities. For example, a waitress picking up food orders in the kitchen is generally less exposed to the hazards there than the cooks are.

Although OSHA does not have a specific standard or policy regarding kitchen apparel, we do recommend that kitchen staff, particularly those working in close proximity to any of the various hazards described above, wear protective clothing such as long-sleeved cotton shirts and pants to protect from cuts and bums."
 
Risky Thicket said:
Thanks, I've read them several times. I'm aware of the EEOC SOPs. I also know from personal experience that the EEOC can be hobbled by its own people, on several levels, over months of investigation, up to and including case manager and EEOC attorneys. In one instance it was a blatant misinterpretation of the law, and in another it was its own complete ignorance and non-complaince of civil law. I'm not an attorney, and even though I am a victim Southern education I somehow learned to read.

The complaint is not about religion and it will not be determined on the basis of religion.
Click to expand...



Thanks for sharing your experience.



Perhaps you could address the issues and facts in OP...:)
 
johnny_rebson said:
This woman was not fired for being too fat. She was not forced to pay for her uniform.

The Hooters uniform is the same as it was when I entered my first Hooters Restaurant. The owners are legally allowed to set uniform requirements.
Click to expand...

That place is always fighting lawsuits and should have been shut down or had EEO laws enforced.
 
Omgitsme said:
Agree with most of that statement. But I dont believe you should have to conform to a dress code that violates your religion unless it interferes with job performance to not do so.
Click to expand...

One more thing that I would like to say about this post. I might agree with your belief IF the girl had no choice but to work there. But she does and she voluntarily applied for a job there. Being that is the case why shouldn't the employer be allowed to dicate that she adhere to the dress code? Which again, she knew about before she applied for the job.
 
Sheesh. It gets a little tiresome. 'I dont like your rules". Oh...OK...well...we understand and wish you the best of luck in your new job. "Wait...thats not fair! You should have to change your rules for me"

No...they shouldnt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom