Mmmm... Bacon...

[Franklinnoble]

http://www.local6.com/money/3614199/detail.html

Woman Fired For Eating 'Unclean' Meat

Attorney: 'It's A Classic Case Of Religious Discrimination'

<text id="txt_posted">POSTED:</text> 5:46 am EDT August 4, 2004
<text id="txt_updated">UPDATED:</text> 12:45 pm EDT August 4, 2004


<!--startindex-->ORLANDO, Fla. -- A Central Florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises, according to Local 6 News. <table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="10" width="200"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#244e8b"><table border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#d9e3f2" valign="top">http://images.ibsys.com/2004/0804/3614306.jpg</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties, Local 6 News reported. However, 10 months after being hired by Rising Star, religious differences led to her termination. Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean.," Local 6 News reported. She was then fire for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report. "Are you telling me they fired you because you had something with ham on it?" Local 6 News reporter Mike Holfeld asked."Yes," Morales said. <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="10"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" bgcolor="#9ab5dd" width="140"> Video</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" bgcolor="#244e8b" height="1" width="140">http://images.ibsys.com/sh/images/structures/misc/spacer.gif</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3" bgcolor="#244e8b" width="1">http://images.ibsys.com/sh/images/structures/misc/spacer.gif</td><td bgcolor="#d9e3f2" valign="top" width="138">http://images.ibsys.com/2004/0804/3614294_120X90.jpg
(http://www.local6.com/money/3614199/detail.html#) http://images.ibsys.com/2001/0126/435612.gifWoman Fired After Eating Pork (http://www.local6.com/money/3614199/detail.html#) </td><td rowspan="3" bgcolor="#244e8b" width="1">http://images.ibsys.com/sh/images/structures/misc/spacer.gif</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#244e8b" width="140">http://images.ibsys.com/sh/images/structures/misc/spacer.gif</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#000000" height="25" width="140">http://images.ibsys.com/sh/images/structures/buttons/en/button_realplayer.gif (http://www.local6.com/news/146136/detail.html)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" bgcolor="#244e8b" width="140">http://images.ibsys.com/sh/images/structures/misc/spacer.gif</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
Holfeld asked, "A pizza and a BLT sandwich?"" Yes," Morales said. Local 6 News obtained the termination letter that states she was fired for refusing to comply with company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises. However, by the company's own admission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that policy is not written, Local 6 News reported. "Did you ever sign to or agree to anything that said I will not eat pork?" Holfeld asked Morales. "Never," Morales said. "When I got hired there, they said we don't care what religion you are." <table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="10" width="200"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#244e8b"><table border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#d9e3f2" valign="top">http://images.ibsys.com/2004/0804/3614296.jpg</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
Attorney Travis Hollifield is representing Morales in a lawsuit against the company."It's just un-American," Hollifield said. "It's not in compliance with the laws of this country."Local 6 News reported that the case has precedent-setting issues because it addresses employee rights and religion in the workplace."It's a classic case of religious discrimination," Hollifield said. "They have not articulated a single reason other than religious reason behind the policy." The CEO of Rising Star, Kujaatele Kweli, told Local 6 News that they have tried to create an office that accommodates anybody's religion -- not just Islam. <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="10" width="200"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#244e8b"><table border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#d9e3f2" valign="top">http://images.ibsys.com/2004/0804/3614318.jpg</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
"Clearly you're accommodating," Holfeld said. "Yes." Kweli replied. "And you have an ecumenical philosophy," Holfeld said. " Yes," Kweli replied."(Then) shouldn't you be able to accommodate all faiths in the same lunch room?" Holfeld asked."We do, we can," Kweli said."But you've dismissed one of your employees for eating pork in the lunch room," Holfeld said."Yes, pork is considered unclean," Kweli said. <table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="10" width="200"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#244e8b"><table border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#d9e3f2" valign="top">http://images.ibsys.com/2004/0804/3614298.jpg</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
The Koran forbids Muslims from eating pork. And according to Kweli, Morales and every employee at the company is advised of the no pork policy. "Our point of view is to respect the laws of the land and the laws of the land as I understand it is to the accommodate people's right to practice their religions if you can," Kweli said. "Even if it impacts other people?" Holfeld asked. "Well, it always impacts other people," Kweli replied. Orlando attorney Mark Nejame is close to the Muslim community, Local 6 News reported. He said Kweli's intentions may cross constitutional parameters, according to the report. "They're making it seem that if you don't follow a certain set of religious practices and beliefs then you're going to be terminated and that's wrong," Nejame said. "If this case prevails, what it will mean -- the implications of this case -- is it will eliminate accommodations of religion." Both sides are steadfast in their belief that they are right. Morales is taking the company to court charging discrimination, Local 6 News reported. Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.
<!--stopindex--><copyrite>
Copyright 2004 by Internet Broadcasting Systems and Local6.com ([email protected]). All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
</copyrite>

[rkmsuf]

If there is no written policy then the company is in the wrong here.

[Fritz]

I don't have any problem with them letting her go

[albionmoonlight]

That story does not contain the phrase "Local 6 News" enough.

[nfg22]

If she was informed not to eat pork on the property and did it then she should be fired.They dont care about her religion they just dont want theirs to be violated

[Samdari]

They can't force her to practice their religion as part of her job duties. They are clearly in the wrong here.

[bbor]

What if you hire a muslim and you ask them not to pray at work?

If they did and you fired them there would be a shit storm.

[Fritz]

um, no one asked her to practice islam. they told her no pork eating at work.

[rkmsuf]

If she had signed something stating company policy it would be a different story. The way the story reads, the lady will win a lawsuit.

[Franklinnoble]

I don't have any problem with them letting her go
I don't have a problem with it, either.

It's their company, they should be able to set whatever rules they like.

[Fritz]

god bless right to work states

[Samdari]

um, no one asked her to practice islam. they told her no pork eating at work.

If that is for religious reasons, they cannot make that request.

[MrBug708]

If she was informed not to eat pork on the property and did it then she should be fired.They dont care about her religion they just dont want theirs to be violated


I don't think a company can tell you what you can and cannot eat

[Fritz]

If that is for religious reasons, they cannot make that request.

well, that is pretty damn weak

[rkmsuf]

I don't have a problem with it, either.

It's their company, they should be able to set whatever rules they like.

they can but when you don't properly document those rules it severly hurts your ability to enforce those rules. Particularly in such an abitrary area (to some) as limiting foods you can eat in the lunch room.

They better have some documentation or I don't see how this flies.

[Fritz]

I don't think a company can tell you what you can and cannot eat

they probably don't tell you what you can eat, just that cant eat it on company grounds. I am sure if she went to Micky Ds for a McRib she would still be drawing a check.

[Franklinnoble]

If that is for religious reasons, they cannot make that request.
I disagree.

Should make for interesting litigation, though....

[Samdari]

the probably don't tell you what you can eat, just that coant eat it on company grounds. I am sure if she went to Micky Ds for a McRib she would still be drawing a check.

Well, you may not like it Fritz, but companies that are not religious organizations cannot require their employees to adhere to the owners' religion at the workplace. Saying that employees cannot eat pork for religious reasons is doing exactly that. That policy is discriminatory on the basis of religion and therefore illegal.

[Samdari]

I disagree.

Should make for interesting litigation, though....

Then try to get the law changed...

[Fritz]

Am I the only one who thinks regulation is out of control when a private business can't have a policy that is based on religion? I am all for a mostly neutral work place in the public sector, but I can't see what right the public has to deny a private company a religious foundation.

---
again, god bless a right to work state

[rkmsuf]

can she wear leather boots to work or is that out as well?

how bout if I'm a man...can I wear a gold watch?

why stop at pork.

[Samdari]

Am I the only one who thinks regulation is out of control when a private business can't have a policy that is based on religion? I am all for a mostly neutral work place in the public sector, but I can't see what right the public has to deny a private company a religious foundation.

---
again, god bless a right to work state

Are you seriously arguing that someone's boss should be able to dictate their religious beliefs?

And the "right to work state" thing thing is way overrated.

(a) it has no bearing here - employers in right to work states still must follow federal non-discrimination laws. Not coincidentally, Florida is a right to work state.

(b) even in right to work states, people file and win lawsuits over their termination all the time, even in cases where no discrimination or harassment occurred. A woman I knew in OK (staunchly RTW) was fired mostly because her boss did not think she was doing a good job. No discrimiation or harassment was alleged. She won a $100,000+ lawsuit.

[albionmoonlight]

Am I the only one who thinks regulation is out of control when a private business can't have a policy that is based on religion? I am all for a mostly neutral work place in the public sector, but I can't see what right the public has to deny a private company a religious foundation.
The right is based on Congress' power to control interstate commerce, which includes businesses.

FWIW, I generally agree with you that the current anti-discrimination policies enforced against private businesses do not make a lot of sense. There are pros and cons on both sides, and I don't really feel like getting into a long discussion about it. Just wanted to let you know that you are not "the only one."

[Cringer]

Damn, so no Kevin Bacon update then? Thats what I was hoping for...........

[Franklinnoble]

Am I the only one who thinks regulation is out of control when a private business can't have a policy that is based on religion? I am all for a mostly neutral work place in the public sector, but I can't see what right the public has to deny a private company a religious foundation.

---
again, god bless a right to work state
Nope, I agree with you 100%. I don't have a problem with her getting fired for it at all... she knew the consequences. Besides, from the photo, she looks like she needs to lay off the pork, anyway.

[QuikSand]

Are you seriously arguing that someone's boss should be able to dictate their religious beliefs?

Actually, I think you're the only person in this thread who believes that a rule prohibiting the employee from eating pork on company grounds is exactly the same as a rule saying the employee must observe the Muslim faith.

[Bee]

Actually, I think you're the only person in this thread who believes that a rule prohibiting the employee from eating pork on company grounds is exactly the same as a rule saying the employee must observe the Muslim faith.

Just a question...other than forcing you to observe the Muslim faith, why would a company forbid you from eating pork on company grounds?

[Samdari]

Actually, I think you're the only person in this thread who believes that a rule prohibiting the employee from eating pork on company grounds is exactly the same as a rule saying the employee must observe the Muslim faith.

Perhaps.

I am still right about it though.

Read the quote from the Qu'ran above.

People of Islamic faith are to be denied flesh of the swine. Nowhere does it say they must prevent everyone around them from partaking. Thus, requiring employees to not eat pork is requiring them to adhere to the muslim faith. I view forcing anyone to adhere to a set of religious beliefs as religiously discriminatory. If religious discrimination does not bother you, neither will this rule.

[Cuckoo]

Just a question...other than forcing you to observe the Muslim faith, why would a company forbid you from eating pork on company grounds?


It's unclean... You know, greasy and stuff... :D

[Fritz]

Are you seriously arguing that someone's boss should be able to dictate their religious beliefs?


I am saying a private company should be able to set a policy that is based on religion, yes.


(a) it has no bearing here - employers in right to work states still must follow federal non-discrimination laws. Not coincidentally, Florida is a right to work state.


Then the company should have just let her go with no explanation.

[rkmsuf]

However, by the company's own admission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that policy is not written, Local 6 News reported. "Did you ever sign to or agree to anything that said I will not eat pork?" Holfeld asked Morales. "Never," Morales said. "When I got hired there, they said we don't care what religion you are."

This is the key passage regarding at least the lawsuit.

[Samdari]

I am saying a private company should be able to set a policy that is based on religion, yes.

So, you think private companies should be able to discriminate based on religion?

Just religion, or are race and sex ok too?

[QuikSand]

Just a question...other than forcing you to observe the Muslim faith, why would a company forbid you from eating pork on company grounds?

Try on this hypothetical:

My wife has no interest at all in having me observe the Jewish faith. However, she finds the presence of pork objectionable to her, and has asked me not to have it around the house.

Have I converted to Judaism by not eating pork at home? or have I just abided by a reasonable request?


I am usually very quick on the trigger with religious infringements... but I'm a lot more worried about them coming from the government than I am from private enterprise. I agree that this particular case is deeply muddled by the absence of a written policy... but if there were such a written policy, I don't think I'd have any trouble with it, as long as all parties involved understood it and entered into their relationship with that knowledge.

[Cuckoo]

Try on this hypothetical:

My wife has no interest at all in having me observe the Jewish faith. However, she finds the presence of pork objectionable to her, and has asked me not to have it around the house.

Have I converted to Judaism by not eating pork at home? or have I just abided by a reasonable request?


I am usually very quick on the trigger with religious infringements... but I'm a lot more worried about them coming from the government than I am from private enterprise. I agree that this particular case is deeply muddled by the absence of a written policy... but if there were such a written policy, I don't think I'd have any trouble with it, as long as all parties involved understood it and entered into their relationship with that knowledge.

I've disagreed with you a lot lately, QS, but this is spot on what I was about to write. Well said.

[Fritz]

So, you think private companies should be able to discriminate based on religion?

Just religion, or are race and sex ok too?

any reason they want, but I have said that before

[Samdari]

any reason they want

You're saying its ok for companies to have a policy against hiring blacks, or women?

[rkmsuf]

Try on this hypothetical:

My wife has no interest at all in having me observe the Jewish faith. However, she finds the presence of pork objectionable to her, and has asked me not to have it around the house.

Have I converted to Judaism by not eating pork at home? or have I just abided by a reasonable request?


I am usually very quick on the trigger with religious infringements... but I'm a lot more worried about them coming from the government than I am from private enterprise. I agree that this particular case is deeply muddled by the absence of a written policy... but if there were such a written policy, I don't think I'd have any trouble with it, as long as all parties involved understood it and entered into their relationship with that knowledge.

amen. not only that would it not be resonable for the company to ask the woman not to do this again and only after a repeated violation then terminate her? I can see if there was some gross misconduct such as wearing a pork hat and slapping the bosses with bacon strips but to see one time you have a blt? To me that smells of them looking for something.

[Fritz]

You're saying its ok for companies to have a policy against hiring blacks, or women?


or whites or men or handicapped or midgets or blue eyed people or the elderly or the french or folks over a certain height....

I am not saying it is okay, I am saying it should not be illegal.

today, I am saying that a company should be allowed to have a no pork product policy, for whatever reason they like, or no reason at all.

[Bee]

Try on this hypothetical:

My wife has no interest at all in having me observe the Jewish faith. However, she finds the presence of pork objectionable to her, and has asked me not to have it around the house.

Have I converted to Judaism by not eating pork at home? or have I just abided by a reasonable request?


I am usually very quick on the trigger with religious infringements... but I'm a lot more worried about them coming from the government than I am from private enterprise. I agree that this particular case is deeply muddled by the absence of a written policy... but if there were such a written policy, I don't think I'd have any trouble with it, as long as all parties involved understood it and entered into their relationship with that knowledge.

No one said she was asked to convert to the Muslim faith to keep her job, but they did force her to observe a religious tenet of the Muslim faith. While I personally don't think it's an unreasonable request, I don't think that makes it legal.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure what legal difference it would make if their policy were in writing.

I still can't think of any reason to forbid pork, other than forcing someone to observe the Muslim faith on company grounds.

[QuikSand]

If they said " you are forbidden to eat pork anywhere, anytime" then I'd agree -- they are requiring her to observe a religious tenet.

If they said "you are forbidden to eat pork while on the company grounds, as it is objectionable to your many fellow workers and our company policy" then I'd say while its origins are certainly religious, it should be fair game for an employment contract.

I see a huge difference between the two.

[QuikSand]

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure what legal difference it would make if their policy were in writing.

This is just general employment law -- a policy in writing is much, much easier to defend as a grounds for dismissal than a policy that is not so clearly stated. Nothing to do with the religious overtones of this particular case, just in general.

[Bee]

If they said " you are forbidden to eat pork anywhere, anytime" then I'd agree -- they are requiring her to observe a religious tenet.

If they said "you are forbidden to eat pork while on the company grounds, as it is objectionable to your many fellow workers and our company policy" then I'd say while its origins are certainly religious, it should be fair game for an employment contract.

I see a huge difference between the two.

Would you see a huge difference if it were a different tenet, say something like noon prayers?

[QuikSand]

No one said she was asked to convert to the Muslim faith to keep her job....

Actually, Samdari has asserted this rather precisely several times in this thread.

[QuikSand]

Would you see a huge difference if it were a different tenet, say something like noon prayers?

I'm not certain I follow. If they are saying that all employees must actively participate in a prayer, then clearly that is requiring the employee to observe a religious tenet.

I understand your point... but I still see a vast difference between "you must observe our religion" and "please don't be discourteous," which is essentially their current policy.

[Bee]

This is just general employment law -- a policy in writing is much, much easier to defend as a grounds for dismissal than a policy that is not so clearly stated. Nothing to do with the religious overtones of this particular case, just in general.

True, but I'm not sure if the policy were deemed to be discrimination if it would make it more difficult legally if it were a written company policy. I think at that point you start getting into a written agreement versus discrimination and I really don't know how that would complicate things.

[Fritz]

Would you see a huge difference if it were a different tenet, say something like noon prayers?

Asking someone to do something is a little different from asking someone not to do something, I would think.

[rkmsuf]

True, but I'm not sure if the policy were deemed to be discrimination if it would make it more difficult legally if it were a written company policy. I think at that point you start getting into a written agreement versus discrimination and I really don't know how that would complicate things.

One could argue you don't have a company policy without it written and formerly agreed to. All the woman has to say is that she was never told of this pork rule and had no idea. It then becomes he said, she said without documentation.

[Samdari]

Actually, Samdari has asserted this rather precisely several times in this thread.

Ummm, no, just that she was forced to observe the faith at work.

And I see the same difference as you between "forcing someone to observe a religious tenet" and "asking someone not to be discourteous." Where we differ is where this rule falls - I see it as the former and you see it as the latter.

[Samdari]

One could argue you don't have a company policy without it written and formerly agreed to.

Companies lose wrongful termination suits all the time on this basis - even in right to work states.

[QuikSand]

True, but I'm not sure if the policy were deemed to be discrimination if it would make it more difficult legally if it were a written company policy.

I absolutely agree.

When I said "this particular case is deeply muddled by the absence of a written policy," what I meant was basically this: "all this talk about religious discrimination might be moot, since these guys didn't even have a written policy, and might not have any legs to stand on anyway."

[rkmsuf]

Companies lose wrongful termination suits all the time on this basis - even in right to work states.

That's correct. The woman could claim that she had no idea eating bacon was offensive to Mulims or that the company was even comprised of a majority of Muslims.

Maybe she did know and was sticking it to them. There is no proof and the burden of proof is on the employer since they have brought this action.

[Bee]

I'm not certain I follow. If they are saying that all employees must actively participate in a prayer, then clearly that is requiring the employee to observe a religious tenet.

I understand your point... but I still see a vast difference between "you must observe our religion" and "please don't be discourteous," which is essentially their current policy.

I understand what you're saying, but I guess I'll just have to disagree. To me this forces a person to follow a religious tenet (at work) they would not otherwise be following to keep their employment. I just don't see how that can really be legal based on my limited understanding of the laws.

[sterlingice]

Ok, how about this, to the people who think she has been wrongfully terminated: What if this was a company of vegetarians? Or even better, a company where the people are just allergic to pork or despise it? How do you feel about those three scenarios? Is the whole hang up because it was a religious belief?

SI

[rkmsuf]

Ok, how about this, to the people who think she has been wrongfully terminated: What if this was a company of vegetarians? Or even better, a company where the people are just allergic to pork or despise it? How do you feel about those three scenarios? Is the whole hang up because it was a religious belief?

SI

No difference. I don't think this has much to do with religion legally. Take any scenario and without a policy you can't dismiss someone and not risk legal action.

You could say on Tuesdays nobody is allowed to wear red because the owner's cat got run over on a Tuesday and he happened to have a red shirt on. You make someone sign off on that when hired then it's pretty cut and dry. Try arguing that in court without a sign off.

[Samdari]

Is the whole hang up because it was a religious belief?


For me, yes, for the dual reasons that federal law prohibits making employment determinations on the basis of religion, and because I abhor the thought of anyone being given the right to dictate another's religion - in any context.

[Franklinnoble]

Hmm... what if this was a company that allowed no carbs at the office?

[sterlingice]

Well, I'll be curious to see where this goes. I don't really understand EOE laws and this'll be an interesting test of it.

SI

[QuikSand]

No difference. I don't think this has much to do with religion legally. Take any scenario and without a policy you can't dismiss someone and not risk legal action.

Thus my earlier "muddled" comment (since misconstrued and clarified). It's not very intersting having a thread to debate whether a policy is any good without being written.

It is far more interesting to debate, in the general sense (setting aside those pesky details) whether such a policy -- obviously grounded in religious beliefs -- is fair.

[sterlingice]

Hmm... what if this was a company that allowed no carbs at the office?
Well, then eating bacon would have been fine but the bread on her BLT would have been evil. So, in the end, the moral of the story: "BLT at work? JUST DON'T DO IT! It's the law!" :D

SI

[rkmsuf]

Thus my earlier "muddled" comment (since misconstrued and clarified). It's not very intersting having a thread to debate whether a policy is any good without being written.

It is far more interesting to debate, in the general sense (setting aside those pesky details) whether such a policy -- obviously grounded in religious beliefs -- is fair.

That particular one is fair in my mind but you could have a very hard time drawing the line. The earlier example of forcing you to pray at 11:00 would fall over that line I would think.

[Fritz]

I abhor the thought of anyone being given the right to dictate another's religion - in any context.

somehow I think you are overstating your position

[Samdari]

somehow I think you are overstating your position

how so?

[Fritz]

in genaeral what I see is (not from this thread per se):

It is okay to keep an employee from putting up a nativity set on their desk, because it is pushing christianity.

It is not okay to keep a muslim from praying several times a day at work, because that is insensitive.

It is okay to keep a practioner of voodoo from sacrificing a live chicken at work because that is just a little spooky.

It is not okay to keep a woman from having a pork chop at work because they are so damn tasty.

[Fritz]

how so?

"any context" is quite a statement.

[Samdari]

"any context" is quite a statement.

Aye, you are right here. Substitute "the vast majority."

[Fritz]

FWIW, the fed has a real problem with me sacrificing virgins to the volcano god, EVEN ON MY BREAK. They have no written policy however....

[Samdari]

FWIW, the fed has a real problem with me sacrificing virgins to the volcano god, EVEN ON MY BREAK. They have no written policy however....

Funny, I work for the army, and they embrace this form of religious expression.

[Fritz]

Funny, I work for the army, and they embrace this form of religious expression.

fucking navy

[clintl]

Employees have rights, too. As far as I'm concerned, no employer should be able to impose any rules that aren't directly related to creating and maintaining a safe, productive workplace. And what you eat for lunch in the cafeteria doesn't have anything to do with safety or productivity.

[Fritz]

Clint, what exactly are private companies then other than privately managed extension of the government?

[sterlingice]

Employees have rights, too. As far as I'm concerned, no employer should be able to impose any rules that aren't directly related to creating and maintaining a safe, productive workplace. And what you eat for lunch in the cafeteria doesn't have anything to do with safety or productivity.
Unfortunately you can never make a blanket statement like that with what I think is a perfectly reasonable example (and I certainly did have fun writing it). Let's take, for instance, a shipping company called Clintl Inc. The majority of stuff is taken off of high shelves by, say, a crazy lunatic old man named Fritz, who is in the Local Box Movers and Slack Jawed Yokels 129th. He uses a ladder and takes down 20 lb boxes to the ground, loads them on cart and takes them to the trucks. One day, he grabs one awkwardly, falls back off the ladder, and sues his boss, the oppressive Mr Clintl for not installing an exlaborate but expensive forklift that does all the work for him so he can sleep-- I mean, so it keeps him from injuring himself. See- you haven't maximized safety and isn't that one of your two main criteria? Not only that, but it helps efficiency because it increases the number of boxes the old codger can move by 50%, never mind the fact that SterlingIce's Super Duper Box Mover costs your company $15 million.

Anyways, my point lost in this crazy (yet fun to write) story is that you can't just make a blanket statement like "no employer should be able to impose any rules that aren't directly related to creating and maintaining a safe, productive workplace". Because this would be a two way street and your employees could sue you for not giving them the same even if it's this ludicrous.

SI

[randal7]

Suppose the company owner and most employees were Christian, and suppose further that employees were allowed to display personal photos in their work area. However, no employee is allowed to display photos of their gay life partner because this may offend the co-workers. In this example as in the real instance, a relatively minor freedom is infringed based on other peoples' sensitivities. I think this example would be widely denounced as unacceptable (in the media, not necessarily on this forum).

[Yossarian]

Some of the comments here reminded me of an episode of King of the Hill.

Hank is hiring a new assistant for his petrolium business and initially has "Religion: Christion [ ] Other [ ] " or something like that on the application form.

Peggy informs him that this is illegal.

We then see a clip of him interviewing someone. He's asking the question:
"Who would you rather have lunch with: Jesus, Mohammed or Budda"?

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's their company, they should be able to set whatever rules they like.

Franklinnoble pretty much summed up my general position on the subject.

But ...

Under current law, the company screwed itself over by not having the policy in writing and/or having the employee sign something. They'll lose the lawsuit because of it.

[CraigSca]

I hate to "tangent hijack" this thread, but can someone explain to me what is meant by this: "Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat..."

What is considered "dead meat"? Stuff that's been laying around? Isn't any animal you eat roughly considered "dead meat"?

[Bee]

"Who would you rather have lunch with: Jesus, Mohammed or Budda"?
Mohammed. We know Jesus likes to eat a lot from the last supper evidence. Just look at Budda, I mean c'mon there'd be nothing left! With Mohammed I think I'd have the most amount of food available to me which is the most important factor in the decision. (Although that water to wine thing might make me reconsider...) :D

[Bee]

I hate to "tangent hijack" this thread, but can someone explain to me what is meant by this: "Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat..."

What is considered "dead meat"? Stuff that's been laying around? Isn't any animal you eat roughly considered "dead meat"?

I think it reads "dead meat, blood and flesh of the swine" (or something like that). Not all dead meat, just swine dead meat.

The second line is the one I've always found interesting (the one about not eating anything invoking the name other than Allah or something like that). I used to work at a company where there were quite a few Muslims and some were very religious. Several would not eat any meats that had not been properly prepared including the invocation of the name of Allah during the slaughter of the animal. They also wouldn't eat in places where there was a chance that their food came in contact with instruments used in the production of unclean meats. For example if we went to a pizza place, they would request the knife used to cut their vegetarian pizza be a freshly cleaned knife. We'd get some strange looks but I tried to respect their beliefs and avoided eating things that were inappropriate in front of them. Of course, this wasn't enforced by my company...it was a personal choice of mine.

[Fritz]

Mohammed. We know Jesus likes to eat a lot from the last supper evidence. Just look at Budda, I mean c'mon there'd be nothing left! With Mohammed I think I'd have the most amount of food available to me which is the most important factor in the decision. (Although that water to wine thing might make me reconsider...) :D

You are thinking of the fat Buddhas in the Chinese resturants. Most Buddhas are slim

[Bee]

You are thinking of the fat Buddhas in the Chinese resturants. Most Buddhas are slim

Hey, I only know about the ones I've seen and they are all fat. :D

[CraigSca]

I think it reads "dead meat, blood and flesh of the swine" (or something like that). Not all dead meat, just swine dead meat.


Ah, thanks Bee. I interpreted the comma between the two as two separate items, not as one flowing thought. Thanks for the clarification.

[stkelly52]

From my time spent living in a muslim country I know a little bit about Islam, and actually I think a good case could be made that ALLOWING pork to be eaten in a company cafeteria is a violation of muslims' rights. Its very presence in the cafeteria can (based on some interpretations) make the whole cafeteria unclean meaning muslims would not be allowed to eat there at all.

[QuikSand]

Ah, thanks Bee. I interpreted the comma between the two as two separate items, not as one flowing thought. Thanks for the clarification.

Reminds me of my favorite example of the missing comma from a list causing a misinterpretation:

I give my thanks to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

[Ksyrup]

That's why I insist on using the second comma.

[QuikSand]

Suppose the company owner and most employees were Christian, and suppose further that employees were allowed to display personal photos in their work area. However, no employee is allowed to display photos of their gay life partner because this may offend the co-workers. In this example as in the real instance, a relatively minor freedom is infringed based on other peoples' sensitivities. I think this example would be widely denounced as unacceptable (in the media, not necessarily on this forum).

I think that's a pretty good argument.

My instinct is to say that there's a meaningful difference between that case (where the employer's policy arises from what I'd term as bigotry) and the incident case (where the employer's policy arises from a bona fide religious practice) ... but I can see that creates something of a slippery logic.

[Draft Dodger]

VINCENT
You want some bacon?

JULES
No, man, I don't eat pork.

VINCENT
Are you Jewish ?

JULES
No, I ain't Jewish, i just don't dig on swine, that's all.

VINCENT
Why not?

JULES
Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals.

VINCENT
But bacon tastes good, pork chops taste good...

JULES
Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie,
But I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfuckers.
Pigs sleep and root in shit, that's a filthy animal.
I don't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces.

VINCENT
How about a dog? A dog eats its own feces

JULES
I don't eat dog either

VINCENT
Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?

JULES
I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy, but it's definately dirty.
But, dogs got personality, personality goes a long way.

VINCENT

filty animal. Is that true?

JULES
We' have to be talkin' 'bout one charmin' motherfuckin' pig.