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.
Her lawsuit named several very easy was to accommodate (refer to another office, let clerks issue the licenses, etc.).
” Does the fact the Davis is a govt employee make any difference at all?”
She was elected to the position. The county cannot act to ‘accomodate’ her.
She controls the department. She has taken the stand and the clerks under her are to follow her directions.
“Elected officials are not exempt from the law because they are elected. Sheesh! “
Sheesh!
That is not the point.
I’m led to believe Kim Clark is protected (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm), and should have been accommodated for her religious beliefs.
But, I’m not an attorney, just a guy with a good googler.
“You are subject to them same rights and protections whether you work for the private or public sector.”
The rights and protections of elected officials are not the same as regular employers.
“Her lawsuit named several very easy was to accommodate (refer to another office, let clerks issue the licenses, etc.). “
The governor of KY issued an order for all clerks to issue.
She petitioned for a stay on that order saying the governor overstepped his authority.
“Her lawsuit named several very easy was to accommodate (refer to another office, let clerks issue the licenses, etc.).”
Her lawsuit was against the governor. She filed stating the governor overstepped his authority.
“let clerks issue the licenses”
She supervises the clerks that issue the licenses. They work under her direction.
“just a guy with a good googler.”
Did your ‘googler’ find that Davis is an elected official that runs the office that issues the certificates?
Did your ‘googler’ find that she has sued the governor for overstepping his authority?
This is not just a case of accommodating an employee.
I hope everyone gets it. The current government wants to eliminate Christianity and promote ROP.
Judge David L. Bunning of United States District Court therefore violated Kim Davis' Civil Rights and she should sue the hell out of him.
No on all counts.
Can you enlighten all us without a legal background how those items are relevant?
This, of course, frees Jews from doing any business with Iran, any Iranians, of any Muslims since they have vowed to help kill Jews.
oh! the IRONY of it....
That is absolutely true....No argument on that point.
But what we have here, is standup resistance to a law that should be ignored and resisted by anyone and everyone who can accept the resulting costs.
she is still an ‘empoyee’
And there is a Federal Law protecting a persons religious rights- Odumbo is suing a trucking company right now for refusing to ‘respect the religion’ of a moslem truck driver who didn’t want to drive a load of alcohol
She is not an employee. She was not hired, she can't be fired and she does not have a boss. She is an elected official working for the citizens of her county in concordance of the laws of her state Kentucky.
“she is still an ‘empoyee’
She WAS an employee under her mother BEFORE she was ELECTED to office.
“And there is a Federal Law protecting a persons religious rights-”
And please tell, how, as county supervisor, you would ‘accomodate’ her rights?
hey stupid... don’t come here and be smarmy.
I AM POINTING OUT THE HYPOCRISY
Obama sues to protect the ‘religious rights’ or muzzies, but jails Christians
“hey stupid... don’t come here and be smarmy. I AM POINTING OUT THE HYPOCRISY Obama sues to protect the ‘religious rights’ or muzzies, but jails Christians”
Just because you can’t answer my question is no reason to personally attack me ...
You said she was an employee and should be accommodated by her employer.
I simply asked how you would do the accommodation ...
I give up...
There are those who argue like liberals- nothing you say or do distracts them from their point... you are one of them
There IS NO answer to that question. The hypocrisy -and ONLY the hypocrisy- is the issue I am pointing out.
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.