Skip to comments.Nursing home refused to allow Muslim worker to wear hijab, government lawsuit alleges
Posted on 07/12/2014 11:29:10 AM PDT by lowbridge
An Alabama nursing home is being sued after it allegedly refused to allow a Muslim worker to wear a hijab on the job, according to a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last week.
Shadescrest Health Care Center hired Tracy Martin as a certified nursing assistant in August 2012, according to the lawsuit. Martin reportedly wore the hijab on Aug. 9 and was told to remove the head covering or be subject to termination, according to the government'spress release published Monday. Martin filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC and was fired weeks after Shadescrest received notice of the complaint.
The EEOC charges that Martin was fired in retaliation to her discrimination complaint and for her attempt to exercise her religious rights, the government alleges.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcknights.com ...
Patients should counter sue that they were terrorized by the hajib and expected to be killed for being infidels.
Looked way too much like , The Grim Reaper ?
Oh, no, this simply cannot be!
Hang the nursing home managers by their thumbs; draw and quarter ‘em; blow them from cannons; lynch them from light poles.
But never, never, never assert that those owning and managing facilities of any sort should be able to set policy.
Not in Obama’s Politically Correct Marxist States of America.
good for them
who wants to see that s#i+ in an old folks home anyway ?
You’re d@amn right! I like my head where it is!
Don’t try it with a traditional nun’s habit.
Here in the belly of the `Great Satan’, wearing the hijab is an in-your-face to “infidels”. The residents have a right to be fearful of a member of the staff going jihad on them.
OBTW, can you trust your Muslim doctor?
Wonder who's going to win this one?
Strangely, liberals who would deny the religious freedom of employers over free contraceptives would support the religious freedom of workers to wear a hockey mask.
She probably skips the alcohol hand wipes too - those aren’t Halal you know. And yes, in Obamastan the feds will back her up (and tell you to STFU about your grandmother’s infection.)
If the law requires them to keep her in their employ, I think they would be doing their patients a favor by allowing her to wear her muslim costume. It identifies her as a vagina for satan, which lets the patients know they need to take precautions.
“if you Like Your Mooselim Doctor....
She probably skips the alcohol hand wipes too
do they use toilet paper ?
I got a question do I have right sue her personally if my sick grandma get sick because of not washing her hands I think I have a case in State of CA
Did she show up with it on her first day of work?
If the answer is no, then it's not a religions conviction that causes her to wear it, it's a political one.
Its not a good thing for a nursing home worker to walk around dressed like the Grim Reaper.
An employer has the right to implement a dress code. If she didn’t like it, she is free to find employment elsewhere.
“Strangely, liberals who would deny the religious freedom of employers over free contraceptives would support the religious freedom of workers to wear a hockey mask.”
Excellent point, right on the money!
Don’t hire the death-cultists to begin with. Helpless people don’t need to see someone who believes all ‘infidels’ should die as their ‘caretaker’. That’s mental cruelty. I swear, what will it take for people to realize that TREATING Muslims like civilized people does NOT make them civilized. Islam is a toxic ideology and no one who subscribes to it can be trusted.
wearing that grab is not a requirement of their religion. It may be the case if they go to the mosque or in their country which stones women for less. But this is the USA!!
I guess this means that ny black males who work there can wear hoodies, and any skinheads can wear KKK hoods?
So we’re for religious freedom, just not for everybody.
Nurses have uniforms. Period. Those are the conditions of this job, take it or leave it. There should be some lawyer who can make that case in a courtroom. The elderly have a hard enough time as is, some with chronic aches and pains, some have lost all important family members. They may not want their nurse concealing her face all day. What? am I so germy and contagious that she needs such high level protection? Speak up, employers, don’t be so quick to submit.
If the clients ain’t happy, she gotta go.
Apparently they didn’t know she was a muslim when they hired her.
Hello, this is America. Wear you bags in the sand-country. Here we speak English and women go free. Amazing concept.
Your tax dollars at work, defending the poor and downtrodden.
Residents must have thought she was a moving garbage bag and littered the floor throwing things at it.
With the exception of the federal entities indicated in the Constitution's Clauses 16 & 17 of Section 8 of Article I as examples, entities under the exclusive legislative control of Congress, and regardless what FDR's misguided activist justices wanted everybody to believe about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers when it decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congresss favor, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce, labor or employment issues. The states uniquely have the 10th Amendment-protected power to regulate such issues.
In fact, Justice John Marshall had officially clarifed that Congress has no constitutional authority to stick its big nose into any aspect of intrastate commerce.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]. Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
But the EEOC has actually got more constitutional problems than exercising constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers. More specifically, the Founding States had made the Constitutions Sections 1-3 of Article I to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in non-elected federal bureaucrats like those running the EEOC and the EPA. So Congress has a monopoly on federal legislative / regulatory powers whether it wants it or not. And by delegating legislative powers to non-elected third parties, Congress is wrongly protecting federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 mentioned above imo.
So what the EEOC needs to start doing ASAP in order to preserve its very existence is the following. The EEOC needs to work with Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states, the amendment not only repealing Section 1 of Article I so that Congress can delegate legislative / regulatory powers to non-elected bureaucrats, but the amendment also needs to have a provision delegating to Congress the specific power to regulate intrastate equal employment opportunity issues since Congress never had such powers.
And if the states choose to ratify the EEOCs amendment then Congress will have the power not only to address equal employment opportunity issues, but Congress will be able to delegate such powers to non-elected bureaucrats like those running constitutional undefined independent federal regulatory agencies like the EEOC and EPA, and the EEOC will be a hero.
Kind of an unusual name for a muslam,Tracy. Martin.
Looking for a big settlement I bet.
Good luck finding your next job woman.
stop hiring muslims. anyone you possibly think will give you trouble.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.