Muslim flight attendant sues over serving alcohol on flights

[LuckyDuck]

It would cause the airline to provide maybe another flight attendant, or have flight attendants try to juggle position when someone wanted booze. On smaller planes (of which this seems to be an airline that flies them) there may only be one fight attendant (I have been on a small CRJ with only one).

So basically the whole flight has to go dry because of the flight attendant?

That leads to an unreasonable situation.

and if that is the case she loses. if, however, they could assign her to flights that do not serve alcohol, or to duties that don't require her to hand out alcoholic drinks, or if there is a way to partner her with another attendant that would hand out the drinks and doing so would not cause an unreasonable burden they are obligated to do so

So a Muslim could theoretically be hired by a bar to be a bartender, but if the other bartenders could cover for her, she could be allowed to stand there, and just be ready to serve sodas to people?

no. that's not a reasonable accommodation. a bartender's primary duty is to mix and serve alcoholic drinks.

And one of the primary duties of a flight attendant is to serve things to the passengers, including alcohol.
Reasonable accommodation does not usually involve removal of an entire duty of an employee, which is what the flight attendant in this case is looking for.

if you're right, she loses.
if there was a reasonable accommodation they could make then she wins.

it's really that simple

The only accommodation they could make for her is one where she is moved to a small short run commuter plane which serves nothing.

 

[Rambunctious]

The only accommodation they could make for her is one where she is moved to a small short run commuter plane which serves nothing

Or she can clean toilets in the airport...or she can work the ticket counter....or she can go **** herself...

 

[ogibillm]

no. that's not a reasonable accommodation. a bartender's primary duty is to mix and serve alcoholic drinks.

And one of the primary duties of a flight attendant is to serve things to the passengers, including alcohol.
Reasonable accommodation does not usually involve removal of an entire duty of an employee, which is what the flight attendant in this case is looking for.

if you're right, she loses.
if there was a reasonable accommodation they could make then she wins.

it's really that simple

You are arguing the application of the law, and not the reasoning behind the positions behind each side.

I'm not a flight attendant and i don't know the specifics of the job duties or requirements on various flights. i have no way of knowing if what she was asking was reasonable or not.

i do know that most flights I've been on have two attendants working out of the same cart.
that would seem to make the request reasonable, but maybe that's not how it works for her airline

yes, one on each side, and the efficiency of service would be reduced if one did not serve booze. A reasonable accommodation is one that does not impact the performance of the employee.

maybe. but significantly reduced? i doubt that. and if the attendant in the back was taking care of the alcohol it would be assumed that the one in front would handle both sides to even things out.

 

[Conservative65]

Being in a 15 foot diameter tube 7 miles in the air, unable to get any other service, and having to drive a few miles to get a cake you don't need for weeks or months is not comparable.

I'm sorry not getting a drink on a plane would cause you distress.

It's not about a drink. It's about a double standard.

Christian applying their religious beliefs = people supporting her being sued saying he/she can't do that

Muslim applying her religious beliefs = SAME people as above bending over backwards to protect her ability to do so.

Where? As far as I can tell, everyone supports the airline on this thread. I certainly do.

You mean those chastising the CHRISTIAN baker yet refuse to say the MUSLIM flight attendant should be fired? Look around.

Yeah, who is doing that?

ogibillm is the primary one.

He said the baker discriminated based on sexual orientation while supporting the free exercise of religious beliefs by the Muslim.

 

[martybegan]

And one of the primary duties of a flight attendant is to serve things to the passengers, including alcohol.
Reasonable accommodation does not usually involve removal of an entire duty of an employee, which is what the flight attendant in this case is looking for.

if you're right, she loses.
if there was a reasonable accommodation they could make then she wins.

it's really that simple

You are arguing the application of the law, and not the reasoning behind the positions behind each side.

I'm not a flight attendant and i don't know the specifics of the job duties or requirements on various flights. i have no way of knowing if what she was asking was reasonable or not.

i do know that most flights I've been on have two attendants working out of the same cart.
that would seem to make the request reasonable, but maybe that's not how it works for her airline

yes, one on each side, and the efficiency of service would be reduced if one did not serve booze. A reasonable accommodation is one that does not impact the performance of the employee.

maybe. but significantly reduced? i doubt that. and if the attendant in the back was taking care of the alcohol it would be assumed that the one in front would handle both sides to even things out.

But that would place an additional burden on the other employee, and slow things down. Considering flight attendants have other duties, and on a single aisle plane, any extra time where the cart is blocking impacts the passengers, a situation has been created where accommodation leads to impact to the customers, the employees, and the employers.

 

[jc456]

you are clearly out of your depth and do not have an understanding of the pertinent laws or facts.

I have a full understanding. You defend the Muslim's religious beliefs and chastise the Christian using his.

no. you really don't.
and it's sad that you think you do because it's incredibly clear that you don't.

let me help you out - a business can't typically discriminate against someone because of race, religion, sex, and occasionally sexual orientation.

so refusing to sell someone a product that you sell to others because you don't like their religion or race is illegal.

but a business also has to make reasonable religious accommodations for its employees. 'reasonable' being the operative word, obviously you can't hire a bartender and then accommodate them when they say they can't serve alcohol. but reasonable might mean giving someone the ability to take their breaks at certain times to pray.

do you understand?

Serving alcohol is part of the job description of a flight attendant.

it's not a question of what religion, its a question of the impact on each party.

She should be allowed to wear a proper headscarf if she wants, even to take a quick 5 minute break to pray. these are not major impacts on the job at hand, and could be accommodated. However, one of the top 5 things a flight attendant does is serve refreshments to passengers, and having to get another one to serve people who want booze (especially on a smaller, single aisle plane) is a hardship on the airline, the passengers, and the other workers.

And if you have to travel several miles to get a cake because bigots won't accomadate you, that creates a hardship as well.

We both know what happened to those bakers. Should the same thing happen to her? She refused based on her religion.

They were fined. She should be fired.

The question is will she and if she isn't, do the bakers have a case?

You seem to be thinking some kind of consistent principle will be applied. Probably should let that one go.

That's what's so perverse about this kind of legislation. It turns equal protection inside out. The idea used to be that everyone was treated equally under the law - i.e. treated equally by government. But under corporatism, we try to force everyone to treat each other equally, and we do it via government that treats people decidedly unequally.

what the fk are you trying to say here?

 

[jc456]

if you're right, she loses.
if there was a reasonable accommodation they could make then she wins.

it's really that simple

You are arguing the application of the law, and not the reasoning behind the positions behind each side.

I'm not a flight attendant and i don't know the specifics of the job duties or requirements on various flights. i have no way of knowing if what she was asking was reasonable or not.

i do know that most flights I've been on have two attendants working out of the same cart.
that would seem to make the request reasonable, but maybe that's not how it works for her airline

yes, one on each side, and the efficiency of service would be reduced if one did not serve booze. A reasonable accommodation is one that does not impact the performance of the employee.

maybe. but significantly reduced? i doubt that. and if the attendant in the back was taking care of the alcohol it would be assumed that the one in front would handle both sides to even things out.

But that would place an additional burden on the other employee, and slow things down. Considering flight attendants have other duties, and on a single aisle plane, any extra time where the cart is blocking impacts the passengers, a situation has been created where accommodation leads to impact to the customers, the employees, and the employers.

and causes unsafe flying conditions. It is why everyone does exactly the same things on a plane. Doesn't matter sex, race religion. Sorry charlie.

BTW, she knew she'd be required to serve alcohol, it's in their training. She should not have accepted the position or made arrangements to work behind the counter at the airport. I hear Pac man getting eaten.

 

[dblack]

I have a full understanding. You defend the Muslim's religious beliefs and chastise the Christian using his.

no. you really don't.
and it's sad that you think you do because it's incredibly clear that you don't.

let me help you out - a business can't typically discriminate against someone because of race, religion, sex, and occasionally sexual orientation.

so refusing to sell someone a product that you sell to others because you don't like their religion or race is illegal.

but a business also has to make reasonable religious accommodations for its employees. 'reasonable' being the operative word, obviously you can't hire a bartender and then accommodate them when they say they can't serve alcohol. but reasonable might mean giving someone the ability to take their breaks at certain times to pray.

do you understand?

Serving alcohol is part of the job description of a flight attendant.

And if you have to travel several miles to get a cake because bigots won't accomadate you, that creates a hardship as well.

We both know what happened to those bakers. Should the same thing happen to her? She refused based on her religion.

They were fined. She should be fired.

The question is will she and if she isn't, do the bakers have a case?

You seem to be thinking some kind of consistent principle will be applied. Probably should let that one go.

That's what's so perverse about this kind of legislation. It turns equal protection inside out. The idea used to be that everyone was treated equally under the law - i.e. treated equally by government. But under corporatism, we try to force everyone to treat each other equally, and we do it via government that treats people decidedly unequally.

what the fk are you trying to say here?

I'm saying discrimination laws are the opposite of equal rights. Equal protection is about government treating everyone equally. Discrimination laws try to force us to treat each other equally.

 

[ogibillm]

if you're right, she loses.
if there was a reasonable accommodation they could make then she wins.

it's really that simple

You are arguing the application of the law, and not the reasoning behind the positions behind each side.

I'm not a flight attendant and i don't know the specifics of the job duties or requirements on various flights. i have no way of knowing if what she was asking was reasonable or not.

i do know that most flights I've been on have two attendants working out of the same cart.
that would seem to make the request reasonable, but maybe that's not how it works for her airline

yes, one on each side, and the efficiency of service would be reduced if one did not serve booze. A reasonable accommodation is one that does not impact the performance of the employee.

maybe. but significantly reduced? i doubt that. and if the attendant in the back was taking care of the alcohol it would be assumed that the one in front would handle both sides to even things out.

But that would place an additional burden on the other employee, and slow things down. Considering flight attendants have other duties, and on a single aisle plane, any extra time where the cart is blocking impacts the passengers, a situation has been created where accommodation leads to impact to the customers, the employees, and the employers.

and that could be a valid argument, although i would very much doubt that any significant impact on service would exist.

but absolutely she'll have to show how she could have been accommodated

 

[jc456]

no. you really don't.
and it's sad that you think you do because it's incredibly clear that you don't.

let me help you out - a business can't typically discriminate against someone because of race, religion, sex, and occasionally sexual orientation.

so refusing to sell someone a product that you sell to others because you don't like their religion or race is illegal.

but a business also has to make reasonable religious accommodations for its employees. 'reasonable' being the operative word, obviously you can't hire a bartender and then accommodate them when they say they can't serve alcohol. but reasonable might mean giving someone the ability to take their breaks at certain times to pray.

do you understand?

Serving alcohol is part of the job description of a flight attendant.

We both know what happened to those bakers. Should the same thing happen to her? She refused based on her religion.

They were fined. She should be fired.

The question is will she and if she isn't, do the bakers have a case?

You seem to be thinking some kind of consistent principle will be applied. Probably should let that one go.

That's what's so perverse about this kind of legislation. It turns equal protection inside out. The idea used to be that everyone was treated equally under the law - i.e. treated equally by government. But under corporatism, we try to force everyone to treat each other equally, and we do it via government that treats people decidedly unequally.

what the fk are you trying to say here?

I'm saying discrimination laws are the opposite of equal rights. Equal protection is about government treating everyone equally. Discrimination laws try to force us to treat each other equally.

But they are the same. The law is everyone is treated equal or it is considered discriminatory actions. It is what the charges are for not treating someone equal.

 

[jc456]

You are arguing the application of the law, and not the reasoning behind the positions behind each side.

I'm not a flight attendant and i don't know the specifics of the job duties or requirements on various flights. i have no way of knowing if what she was asking was reasonable or not.

i do know that most flights I've been on have two attendants working out of the same cart.
that would seem to make the request reasonable, but maybe that's not how it works for her airline

yes, one on each side, and the efficiency of service would be reduced if one did not serve booze. A reasonable accommodation is one that does not impact the performance of the employee.

maybe. but significantly reduced? i doubt that. and if the attendant in the back was taking care of the alcohol it would be assumed that the one in front would handle both sides to even things out.

But that would place an additional burden on the other employee, and slow things down. Considering flight attendants have other duties, and on a single aisle plane, any extra time where the cart is blocking impacts the passengers, a situation has been created where accommodation leads to impact to the customers, the employees, and the employers.

and that could be a valid argument, although i would very much doubt that any significant impact on service would exist.

but absolutely she'll have to show how she could have been accommodated

and they'd have to ask her, did you know walking on the plane that you'd be required to serve alcohol? What do you think she'd say?

 

[dblack]

Serving alcohol is part of the job description of a flight attendant.

They were fined. She should be fired.

The question is will she and if she isn't, do the bakers have a case?

You seem to be thinking some kind of consistent principle will be applied. Probably should let that one go.

That's what's so perverse about this kind of legislation. It turns equal protection inside out. The idea used to be that everyone was treated equally under the law - i.e. treated equally by government. But under corporatism, we try to force everyone to treat each other equally, and we do it via government that treats people decidedly unequally.

what the fk are you trying to say here?

I'm saying discrimination laws are the opposite of equal rights. Equal protection is about government treating everyone equally. Discrimination laws try to force us to treat each other equally.

But they are the same. The law is everyone is treated equal or it is considered discriminatory actions. It is what the charges are for not treating someone equal.

They're not the same. Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights; that no one gets special privileges from the state because of their rank, class, status, gender, religion etc.... Discrimination laws try to force us to treat each other equally. And, as a practical matter of enforcement, such laws almost always require government to do what equal rights prohibits (ie grant special privileges).

 

[ogibillm]

I'm not a flight attendant and i don't know the specifics of the job duties or requirements on various flights. i have no way of knowing if what she was asking was reasonable or not.

i do know that most flights I've been on have two attendants working out of the same cart.
that would seem to make the request reasonable, but maybe that's not how it works for her airline

yes, one on each side, and the efficiency of service would be reduced if one did not serve booze. A reasonable accommodation is one that does not impact the performance of the employee.

maybe. but significantly reduced? i doubt that. and if the attendant in the back was taking care of the alcohol it would be assumed that the one in front would handle both sides to even things out.

But that would place an additional burden on the other employee, and slow things down. Considering flight attendants have other duties, and on a single aisle plane, any extra time where the cart is blocking impacts the passengers, a situation has been created where accommodation leads to impact to the customers, the employees, and the employers.

and that could be a valid argument, although i would very much doubt that any significant impact on service would exist.

but absolutely she'll have to show how she could have been accommodated

and they'd have to ask her, did you know walking on the plane that you'd be required to serve alcohol? What do you think she'd say?

that doesn't matter

 

[OldLady]

You dopes wanted a religious exemption and this is where it leads. Enjoy.

TOTALLY not the same thing

Why is it not the same thing?

 

[TNHarley]

You dopes wanted a religious exemption and this is where it leads. Enjoy.

TOTALLY not the same thing

Why is it not the same thing?

This woman works for a private business.

 

[Ravi]

She worked for the airline for a few years and then converted to Islam.

The airline originally made an accommodation by having the other attendant serve the alcohol. When the other attendant complained, the airline suspended the Muslim woman.

Muslim flight attendant suspended for not serving alcohol

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Muslim flight attendant sues over serving alcohol on flights

A Muslim flight attendant has sued ExpressJet, accusing the airline of wrongly suspending her because she refused to serve alcohol to passengers.


**** muslims, alcohol bans are next, I hate that fukking religion and I hate the liberals who enable these wankers

I'll say what I always say.... if you can't do the job, find another job. that's what the lowlife clerk should have done in ohio.

WOW , shocked to see you that. PLEASANTLY.

And agreed, if your employer tells you that you have to serve certain items, then you have to serve them. This isn't the same situation as the owner of a company choosing not to do so. If a Muslim airline didn't want to serve alcohol, obviously that is their right (though who in their right mind would fly on a Muslim airline LOL)

 

[OldLady]

This shouldn't even be a news item. I was a short order cook once. If I told the boss in year two that for some reason I could no longer peel the potatoes for homefries, I would have expected to get fired right quick. What in hell is this about? Makes no sense to me at all.

 

[martybegan]

You are arguing the application of the law, and not the reasoning behind the positions behind each side.

I'm not a flight attendant and i don't know the specifics of the job duties or requirements on various flights. i have no way of knowing if what she was asking was reasonable or not.

i do know that most flights I've been on have two attendants working out of the same cart.
that would seem to make the request reasonable, but maybe that's not how it works for her airline

yes, one on each side, and the efficiency of service would be reduced if one did not serve booze. A reasonable accommodation is one that does not impact the performance of the employee.

maybe. but significantly reduced? i doubt that. and if the attendant in the back was taking care of the alcohol it would be assumed that the one in front would handle both sides to even things out.

But that would place an additional burden on the other employee, and slow things down. Considering flight attendants have other duties, and on a single aisle plane, any extra time where the cart is blocking impacts the passengers, a situation has been created where accommodation leads to impact to the customers, the employees, and the employers.

and that could be a valid argument, although i would very much doubt that any significant impact on service would exist.

but absolutely she'll have to show how she could have been accommodated

The impact is you have 1 person serving drinks instead of two. She can't even hand over a drink made by the other Flight attendant, if you go by her position on touching alcohol. So she gets done serving non-alcoholic stuff, and now has to wait for the alcohol server to finish double duty.

 

[martybegan]

She worked for the airline for a few years and then converted to Islam.

The airline originally made an accommodation by having the other attendant serve the alcohol. When the other attendant complained, the airline suspended the Muslim woman.

Muslim flight attendant suspended for not serving alcohol

I would complain too if I had to pick up for someone else's job.