Ariens Co. fires seven Muslim employees over unscheduled prayer breaks

[martybegan]

You have failed to show the law is not evenly applied. First, you would actually have to show the written law that was violated by the employer. then you would have to show an equivalent example of Christians being treated differently.
So far you have failed to do either one.

There is actually one problem with the employer's position which could bite them in the ass if the 21 former employees attempt to file for unemployment, or if the 7 fired employees sue for wrongful discharge. The employer previously provided reasonable accommodations to Muslim employees in the form of flexibility to use their allotted breaks at times that aligned with their religious duties.

Because the flexibility was previously given, this ends up being strong evidence that the accommodations were reasonable and did not place undue burden on the company. If any legal action takes place the company will have a significant burden to overcome to defend itself against a discrimination claim.

it depends. If the employees began abusing the break system, or if it was determined that the breaks as previously constructed caused disruption to the manufacturing process, then the company revoking its previous stance could be seen as warranted due to productivity issues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Quote me saying anything of the sort.

Come on dude, you are all bloodied up lying in the floor, why are you begging for being kicked too. Take your loss and move on.

Quote me taking the side of the Muslims. Quote me even implying that. Quote me saying Ariens was wrong.

You people got SO fucked here, by me, and that you don't know it makes it even better.

Based on the information available, the Muslims don't have a case. I saw that from from my first reading of the post.

lol, you idiots are such fucking children you had to make up a position for me, out of whole cloth, and then attack me for my imaginary positions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Grow up. What Christian denomination prays multiple times a day in adherence to a religious regimen?

Then I guess we cant compare the two as equal.
Now, show me a company that allows their employees to leave the job every day to go to a prayer meeting. Christians DO have prayer meetings on a daily basis. Most cant go because they work and cant get away from the job, but please, show the examples.

Why should I have to?

because you are the one that insists there is not equal treatment. Its up to you to prove it to us.
since you cant, you lose.

Quote me saying anything of the sort.

just scroll back and look for yourself, I tire of your idiocy.
I swear, dealing with liberals is like trying to get a group of retards out of a round room filled with bouncy balls.

Quote me saying anything of the sort.

 

[SwimExpert]

You have failed to show the law is not evenly applied. First, you would actually have to show the written law that was violated by the employer. then you would have to show an equivalent example of Christians being treated differently.
So far you have failed to do either one.

There is actually one problem with the employer's position which could bite them in the ass if the 21 former employees attempt to file for unemployment, or if the 7 fired employees sue for wrongful discharge. The employer previously provided reasonable accommodations to Muslim employees in the form of flexibility to use their allotted breaks at times that aligned with their religious duties.

Because the flexibility was previously given, this ends up being strong evidence that the accommodations were reasonable and did not place undue burden on the company. If any legal action takes place the company will have a significant burden to overcome to defend itself against a discrimination claim.

it depends. If the employees began abusing the break system, or if it was determined that the breaks as previously constructed caused disruption to the manufacturing process, then the company revoking its previous stance could be seen as warranted due to productivity issues.

Yes, theoretically, you are correct. But actually proving that in court would be a large burden to meet. Not having enough information here it's difficult to know for sure. But, for example, if the previous system had been in place for several years, then it's very difficult to claim that it was causing a disruption in the manufacturing process. Not only that, but the company will ultimately have to provide tangible evidence that the change actually yielded some kind of substantial benefit to the company, i.e. they will have to demonstrate a significant increased production yield.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Interesting how RW'ers tend to react so differently to accommodations for Christians vs accommodations for Muslims.

Provide us an example of Christians wanting 5 breaks a day of 10 to 15 minutes to pray in a special room just for them? You are of course aware that in Islam the requirement to pray is not required if work or school interferes with the schedule? The whiners are just that whiners

 

[defcon4]

Quote me saying anything of the sort.

Come on dude, you are all bloodied up lying in the floor, why are you begging for being kicked too. Take your loss and move on.

Quote me taking the side of the Muslims. Quote me even implying that. Quote me saying Ariens was wrong.

You people got SO fucked here, by me, and that you don't know it makes it even better.

Based on the information available, the Muslims don't have a case. I saw that from from my first reading of the post.

lol, you idiots are such fucking children you had to make up a position for me, out of whole cloth, and then attack me for my imaginary positions.

You are a sour loser, dude.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Interesting how RW'ers tend to react so differently to accommodations for Christians vs accommodations for Muslims.

Which Christians are requesting prayer breaks from their employers?

 

[SwimExpert]

You have failed to show the law is not evenly applied. First, you would actually have to show the written law that was violated by the employer. then you would have to show an equivalent example of Christians being treated differently.
So far you have failed to do either one.

There is actually one problem with the employer's position which could bite them in the ass if the 21 former employees attempt to file for unemployment, or if the 7 fired employees sue for wrongful discharge. The employer previously provided reasonable accommodations to Muslim employees in the form of flexibility to use their allotted breaks at times that aligned with their religious duties.

Because the flexibility was previously given, this ends up being strong evidence that the accommodations were reasonable and did not place undue burden on the company. If any legal action takes place the company will have a significant burden to overcome to defend itself against a discrimination claim.

unless the time used for breaks began being extended, or additional times were taken outside of breaks.

But that's a matter of individuals breaking policy, and would call for individual disciplinary action. It does not really call for a new policy, and in a legal action the company would have a heavy burden trying to prove otherwise.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Interesting how RW'ers tend to react so differently to accommodations for Christians vs accommodations for Muslims.

I'm a Christian... I've never taken a "prayer break". I don't know any who do.

What are you talking about?

 

[martybegan]

You have failed to show the law is not evenly applied. First, you would actually have to show the written law that was violated by the employer. then you would have to show an equivalent example of Christians being treated differently.
So far you have failed to do either one.

There is actually one problem with the employer's position which could bite them in the ass if the 21 former employees attempt to file for unemployment, or if the 7 fired employees sue for wrongful discharge. The employer previously provided reasonable accommodations to Muslim employees in the form of flexibility to use their allotted breaks at times that aligned with their religious duties.

Because the flexibility was previously given, this ends up being strong evidence that the accommodations were reasonable and did not place undue burden on the company. If any legal action takes place the company will have a significant burden to overcome to defend itself against a discrimination claim.

it depends. If the employees began abusing the break system, or if it was determined that the breaks as previously constructed caused disruption to the manufacturing process, then the company revoking its previous stance could be seen as warranted due to productivity issues.

Yes, theoretically, you are correct. But actually proving that in court would be a large burden to meet. Not having enough information here it's difficult to know for sure. But, for example, if the previous system had been in place for several years, then it's very difficult to claim that it was causing a disruption in the manufacturing process. Not only that, but the company will ultimately have to provide tangible evidence that the change actually yielded some kind of substantial benefit to the company, i.e. they will have to demonstrate a significant increased production yield.

I don't think they have to prove a significant increase, all they have to show is that the employees took the original breaks given to them (voluntarily I might add) and that the employees abused the breaks.

I have seen things similar in my company, where we were given flex start time, and everyone was fine in the beginning, until everyone started showing up at the later start times consistently, and the program had to be stopped.

 

[SwimExpert]

Provide us an example of Christians wanting 5 breaks a day of 10 to 15 minutes to pray in a special room just for them? You are of course aware that in Islam the requirement to pray is not required if work or school interferes with the schedule? The whiners are just that whiners

How about you provide evidence that the Muslim employees in the current case were doing that. Islam requires prayer five times thoughout the day. Not the work shift. The first occurs before dawn. The last occurs after dusk. No work shift is going to cover all of these. A typical shift will cover two, maybe three of these prayer times. Particularly since most of these times have some degree of flexibility themselves. So even if the third prayer phase begins at the end of your work shift, you can always just go home and pray there.

So stop making up bullshit. Nobody was asking for 5 breaks per shift, and there is nothing that indicates that they demanded a special room.

 

[martybegan]

You have failed to show the law is not evenly applied. First, you would actually have to show the written law that was violated by the employer. then you would have to show an equivalent example of Christians being treated differently.
So far you have failed to do either one.

There is actually one problem with the employer's position which could bite them in the ass if the 21 former employees attempt to file for unemployment, or if the 7 fired employees sue for wrongful discharge. The employer previously provided reasonable accommodations to Muslim employees in the form of flexibility to use their allotted breaks at times that aligned with their religious duties.

Because the flexibility was previously given, this ends up being strong evidence that the accommodations were reasonable and did not place undue burden on the company. If any legal action takes place the company will have a significant burden to overcome to defend itself against a discrimination claim.

unless the time used for breaks began being extended, or additional times were taken outside of breaks.

But that's a matter of individuals breaking policy, and would call for individual disciplinary action. It does not really call for a new policy, and in a legal action the company would have a heavy burden trying to prove otherwise.

If a assembly line situation individuals stopping here and there is a significant detriment. I'm management. If I decided to pray for 20 minutes twice a day, and as long as I was willing to go back to work when called or needed, I wouldn't impact production. Line workers are part of a process, and any one disruption has ripple effects on the entire line.

 

[SwimExpert]

I don't think they have to prove a significant increase, all they have to show is that the employees took the original breaks given to them (voluntarily I might add) and that the employees abused the breaks.

If they claim in court that the old policy caused a disruption in the manufacturing process, then yes they will likely have to show a significant increase in production since adopting the new policy. Any claim that employees abused the breaks will be pretty much irrelevant, because that is a disciplinary matter to be addressed with those individual employees.

I have seen things similar in my company, where we were given flex start time, and everyone was fine in the beginning, until everyone started showing up at the later start times consistently, and the program had to be stopped.

The problem with your comparison is that you're talking about a much wider policy that applies to the general circumstance of work being done. In the case here, we're talking about a policy of providing special accommodations for a select purpose. Also, you're talking about a new policy that was implemented and did not go well, so it was discarded. If the break flexibility policy here was also a new policy that didn't go well then that will weight strongly in the employer's favor. But if it was a long standing policy that they suddenly decided to scrap, then your example will have no comparative value.

 

[SwimExpert]

If a assembly line situation individuals stopping here and there is a significant detriment. I'm management. If I decided to pray for 20 minutes twice a day, and as long as I was willing to go back to work when called or needed, I wouldn't impact production. Line workers are part of a process, and any one disruption has ripple effects on the entire line.

That's all fine and dandy. But if that's the case, then how did the company manage to provide this flexibility for years and years?

That is going to be an extremely important question if there are any unemployment filings or lawsuits.

 

[martybegan]

I don't think they have to prove a significant increase, all they have to show is that the employees took the original breaks given to them (voluntarily I might add) and that the employees abused the breaks.

If they claim in court that the old policy caused a disruption in the manufacturing process, then yes they will likely have to show a significant increase in production since adopting the new policy. Any claim that employees abused the breaks will be pretty much irrelevant, because that is a disciplinary matter to be addressed with those individual employees.

I have seen things similar in my company, where we were given flex start time, and everyone was fine in the beginning, until everyone started showing up at the later start times consistently, and the program had to be stopped.

The problem with your comparison is that you're talking about a much wider policy that applies to the general circumstance of work being done. In the case here, we're talking about a policy of providing special accommodations for a select purpose. Also, you're talking about a new policy that was implemented and did not go well, so it was discarded. If the break flexibility policy here was also a new policy that didn't go well then that will weight strongly in the employer's favor. But if it was a long standing policy that they suddenly decided to scrap, then your example will have no comparative value.

If it is a systemic issue with certain employees, then a blanket change in policy is warranted. I'm sure this company never had to deal with prayer breaks before a sizable Muslim community entered into the area, and asked for an accommodation, that while in abeyance of the never changed standard policy, was grated unofficially.

merely applying the same policy in place as before, to all employees equally to me does not create an actionable situation, in particular if the employees can still pray in even a modified way, at modified times, using existing breaks, (two 10 min breaks, plus the obvious meal break).

 

[martybegan]

If a assembly line situation individuals stopping here and there is a significant detriment. I'm management. If I decided to pray for 20 minutes twice a day, and as long as I was willing to go back to work when called or needed, I wouldn't impact production. Line workers are part of a process, and any one disruption has ripple effects on the entire line.

That's all fine and dandy. But if that's the case, then how did the company manage to provide this flexibility for years and years?

That is going to be an extremely important question if there are any unemployment filings or lawsuits.

Like I said, more than likely, at some point, the breaks became excessive, people abused the policy, and the company decided to enforce a policy it already had on the books.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Interesting how RW'ers tend to react so differently to accommodations for Christians vs accommodations for Muslims.

I'm a Christian... I've never taken a "prayer break". I don't know any who do.

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about those who thought Kim Davis's desire to ignore the Constitution should be her right.

 

[SwimExpert]

If it is a systemic issue with certain employees, then a blanket change in policy is warranted.

No. Disciplinary action is warranted with those certain employees. Also worth pointing out that your argument seems to jump to the conclusion that there were "issues" with employees. You seem to assume that there were people routinely extending their breaks at their leisure, or taking additional breaks, whatever. You seem rather anxious to insert certain facts, so that you can brush away the circumstances.

The circumstances are that an employer enacted a change in policy that rescinded an accommodation for workers to maintain employment consistent with those workers' religious beliefs. Upon the change taking effect 7 workers were fired and 14 quit their jobs due to conflict created with their beliefs and the new requirements.

This establishes a prima facie case for discrimination. In order to defeat any unemployment or wrongful discharge actions the employer will have a burden to demonstrate that the previous accommodation was never reasonable in the first place, or that new circumstances emerged that made the accommodation unreasonable moving forward. Satisfying this burden will be a tall order.

 

[FJO]

Just for curiosity, do the times designated for prayers change with the change of the clock in the Spring and Fall?

 

[Iceweasel]

The circumstances are that an employer enacted a change in policy that rescinded an accommodation for workers to maintain employment consistent with those workers' religious beliefs. Upon the change taking effect 7 workers were fired and 14 quit their jobs due to conflict created with their beliefs and the new requirements.

That's the beauty of owning your own business. You make the rules, not the hired help. They have the right to not have production interrupted and obviously preferred to stay on schedule instead of being a quasi-mosque. If you religion prevents you from a job, find another job, another religion or adjust to the circumstances.