Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You know, in spite of him being a complete asshole about it, Shogut is right. Too bad he has to be a complete asshole about it though.
Not so. This is what Si Modo is referring to:
EEOC: Title VII, Religious Discrimination
Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
You can, and people have, successfully sued over suppressing religious expression in the workplace.
You know, in spite of him being a complete asshole about it, Shogut is right. Too bad he has to be a complete asshole about it though.
Not necessarily. This is what Si Modo is referring to, the link ignored by Shogun.
EEOC: Title VII, Religious Discrimination
Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
You can, and people have, successfully sued over suppressing religious expression in the workplace. There is no black-and-white answer.
And, my point is that an employer would think long and hard about firing someone over this as they are not fans of getting into EEOC suits.You know, in spite of him being a complete asshole about it, Shogut is right. Too bad he has to be a complete asshole about it though.
Not so. This is what Si Modo is referring to:
EEOC: Title VII, Religious Discrimination
Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
You can, and people have, successfully sued over suppressing religious expression in the workplace.
Unless someone can clearly prove an undue hardship on the other employees to justify that termination, the EEOC suit would be at a minimum a hassle and costly to the employer.
Do tell, what have I gotten wrong here? Or is your MO just to continue with the 'I'm right, you're wrong so shut the fuck up' argument? If so, it's just an intellectually lazy pissing contest.And, my point is that an employer would think long and hard about firing someone over this as they are not fans of getting into EEOC suits.Not so. This is what Si Modo is referring to:
You can, and people have, successfully sued over suppressing religious expression in the workplace.
Unless someone can clearly prove an undue hardship on the other employees to justify that termination, the EEOC suit would be at a minimum a hassle and costly to the employer.
you need to learn to read or shut the fuck up.
Do tell, what have I gotten wrong here? Or is your MO just to continue with the 'I'm right, you're wrong so shut the fuck up' argument? If so, it's just an intellectually lazy pissing contest.And, my point is that an employer would think long and hard about firing someone over this as they are not fans of getting into EEOC suits.
Unless someone can clearly prove an undue hardship on the other employees to justify that termination, the EEOC suit would be at a minimum a hassle and costly to the employer.
you need to learn to read or shut the fuck up.
Clearly communicate your misunderstanding, or argue with my points, or just keep pissing. I suspect you'll just keep pissing. I concede pissing contests, so you'll win that one.
Actually ... not everywhere. There are places where they can fire you for almost anything in the US. Most service jobs won't allow you to wear any religious symbol at all, and anything that gets in the way of other employees is considered allowable reason for termination, no matter what that is. Only recently have they actually created a law that forces employers (wrongly) to allow people religious days off.
Actually ... not everywhere. There are places where they can fire you for almost anything in the US. Most service jobs won't allow you to wear any religious symbol at all, and anything that gets in the way of other employees is considered allowable reason for termination, no matter what that is. Only recently have they actually created a law that forces employers (wrongly) to allow people religious days off.
In most service industries where this would be a serious issue, the employers realize that most employees do not have the means to fight a legal battle over religious expression, or else they wouldn't be service industry employees.
This hasn't stopped people from suing, however.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIM TEEN APPLICANT
EEOC SUES CINRAM WIRELESS FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION: Woman Fired for Observing Her Sabbath, Federal Agency Charges
ALLIANCE RENTAL CENTER SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION:Aaron Rents Franchisee Fired Jehovahs Witness for Religious Objection to Red Shirt Fridays, Federal Agency Charges
COMMUNITY TRANSPORT SERVICES SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION: Ambulance Service Fired Jehovahs Witness Employee for Refusing to Participate in Halloween Carnival, Federal Agency Charges
And these suits are from just the past 3 weeks!
Agreed, if the employer can substantiate that in any potential religious discrimination suit. If it really is an undue hardship, then the employer should fire the person. I'm saying an employer would think long and hard about doing so because of the hassle involved. S/he will weigh the hardship with the costs of a possible loss in a subsequent suit. Hell, risk management departments do this all the time - weigh risks. And, that is all there is to my point.If the other employees are annoyed at being preached at that places an undue hardship on the work place.You know, in spite of him being a complete asshole about it, Shogut is right. Too bad he has to be a complete asshole about it though.
Not so. This is what Si Modo is referring to, the link ignored by Shogun.
You can, and people have, successfully sued over suppressing religious expression in the workplace.EEOC: Title VII, Religious Discrimination
Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
oh well NOTHING says evidence like pending litigation...
oh well NOTHING says evidence like pending litigation...
You work in HR, which means you fuck employees over for a living. You'd be happiest if there were no labor laws, whatsoever.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIM TEEN APPLICANT
EEOC SUES CINRAM WIRELESS FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION: Woman Fired for Observing Her Sabbath, Federal Agency Charges
ALLIANCE RENTAL CENTER SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION:Aaron Rents Franchisee Fired Jehovah’s Witness for Religious Objection to ‘Red Shirt Fridays,’ Federal Agency Charges
COMMUNITY TRANSPORT SERVICES SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION: Ambulance Service Fired Jehovah’s Witness Employee for Refusing to Participate in Halloween Carnival, Federal Agency Charges
And these suits are from just the past 3 weeks!
Where are the outcomes?
oh well NOTHING says evidence like pending litigation...
You work in HR, which means you fuck employees over for a living. You'd be happiest if there were no labor laws, whatsoever.
No shit, KK. That's not what I'm asking for.Do tell, what have I gotten wrong here? Or is your MO just to continue with the 'I'm right, you're wrong so shut the fuck up' argument? If so, it's just an intellectually lazy pissing contest.you need to learn to read or shut the fuck up.
Clearly communicate your misunderstanding, or argue with my points, or just keep pissing. I suspect you'll just keep pissing. I concede pissing contests, so you'll win that one.
Shogun already posted the links to the laws.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIM TEEN APPLICANT
EEOC SUES CINRAM WIRELESS FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION: Woman Fired for Observing Her Sabbath, Federal Agency Charges
ALLIANCE RENTAL CENTER SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION:Aaron Rents Franchisee Fired Jehovahs Witness for Religious Objection to Red Shirt Fridays, Federal Agency Charges
COMMUNITY TRANSPORT SERVICES SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION: Ambulance Service Fired Jehovahs Witness Employee for Refusing to Participate in Halloween Carnival, Federal Agency Charges
And these suits are from just the past 3 weeks!
Where are the outcomes?
Irrelevant. The legal grounds for suits exist, which validates Si Modo's point that companies risk being sued for suppressing religious expression.
QED
Thank you for your sanity.ABERCROMBIE & FITCH SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIM TEEN APPLICANT
EEOC SUES CINRAM WIRELESS FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION: Woman Fired for Observing Her Sabbath, Federal Agency Charges
ALLIANCE RENTAL CENTER SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION:Aaron Rents Franchisee Fired Jehovahs Witness for Religious Objection to Red Shirt Fridays, Federal Agency Charges
COMMUNITY TRANSPORT SERVICES SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION: Ambulance Service Fired Jehovahs Witness Employee for Refusing to Participate in Halloween Carnival, Federal Agency Charges
And these suits are from just the past 3 weeks!
Where are the outcomes?
Irrelevant. The legal grounds for suits exist, which validates Si Modo's point that companies risk being sued for suppressing religious expression.
QED
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIM TEEN APPLICANT
EEOC SUES CINRAM WIRELESS FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION: Woman Fired for Observing Her Sabbath, Federal Agency Charges
ALLIANCE RENTAL CENTER SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION:Aaron Rents Franchisee Fired Jehovahs Witness for Religious Objection to Red Shirt Fridays, Federal Agency Charges
COMMUNITY TRANSPORT SERVICES SUED BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION: Ambulance Service Fired Jehovahs Witness Employee for Refusing to Participate in Halloween Carnival, Federal Agency Charges
And these suits are from just the past 3 weeks!
Where are the outcomes?
Irrelevant. The legal grounds for suits exist, which validates Si Modo's point that companies risk being sued for suppressing religious expression.
QED
Thank you for your sanity.Where are the outcomes?
Irrelevant. The legal grounds for suits exist, which validates Si Modo's point that companies risk being sued for suppressing religious expression.
QED
The EEOC would not sue companies without legal precedent, as they are a federal agency.No, whether it goes to court and the outcome of the trial is relevant. Thousands (perhaps more) frivolous lawsuits are filed every year.
