Posted on 09/04/2015 6:36:51 AM PDT by TitansAFC
Agency Charges Trucking Company Failed to Accommodate and Wrongfully Terminated Two Muslim Employees For Refusal to Deliver Alcohol Due to Religious Beliefs
PEORIA, Ill. - Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol. According to EEOC District Director John P. Rowe, who supervised administrative investigation prior to filing the lawsuit, "Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."
Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. The EEOC filed suit, (EEOC v. Star Transport, Inc., Civil Action No. 13 C 01240-JES-BGC, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Peoria, assigned to U.S. District Judge James E. Shadid), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its statutory conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the fired truck drivers and an order barring future discrimination and other relief.
John Hendrickson, the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Chicago District Office said, "Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."
The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.
If the muslims win then looks like Kimmie will be a wealthy woman and not need her crap clerk job
I'm sure there will be a major disconnect between the consensus here about the Muslim employees of Star Transport and the Christian county clerk in Kentucky.
Why aren't her lawyers using that same argument?
“Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.”
Interesting - federal EEOC doesn’t apply to State employees?
What's the difference between what this trucking firm is "accused" of and an airline refusing to keep stewardesses who refused to look after their appearances?
Is the trucking firm requiring them to drink the alcohol? Were these employees refusing also to deliver pornography?
They are not even required to touch the stuff.
The EEOC likely will not prevail, so this is harassment, meant to intimidate the social order to comply with Islam.
“If the muslims win then looks like Kimmie will be a wealthy woman and not need her crap clerk job”
She was the County Clerk and was paid about $80,000.
She had a staff of several deputy clerks which she denied authorization to give out the certificates.
This is bigger than just one ‘crappy clerk job’.
Not necessarily. The law may apply differently between private and public (government) entities. Any lawyers here?
“Interesting - federal EEOC doesn’t apply to State employees?”
Kim was elected to office.
“Why aren’t her lawyers using that same argument? “
She is not an ‘employee’ that can be accommodated. She was elected to her position by the people. The county has no authority to alter that election.
“Not necessarily. The law may apply differently between private and public (government) entities. Any lawyers here? “
She is not an employee. She is an elected official.
She is a public employee. She is paid a salary by an employer.
“She is a public employee. She is paid a salary by an employer.”
“— She Was Elected To Her Position: Davis, a Democrat, won a 2014 election for Rowan County clerk handily — 53 percent to 46 percent.”
If you’re a muslim you get to sue, if you’re a Catholic you go to jail.
She is an elected official. Elected officials are public employees. She is paid by an employer (The Federal Government, The State of Kentucky, etc.)
Elected officials are not exempt from the law because they are elected. Sheesh!
Playing devils advocate here... Does the fact the Davis is a govt employee make any difference at all? Thoughts appreciated
You neither forfeit your rights, nor are exempted from laws, because your are a public employee instead of a private employee.
“You’re not getting this.
She is an elected official. Elected officials are public employees.”
You are not getting it. The county has no authority to ‘accomodate’ her to another position.
As an elected person she is taking the stand that her office will not issue the certificates.
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.