Muslim flight attendant who refused to serve alcohol sues airline for ‘unlawful’ suspension

An American Muslim flight attendant has sued her former employer, claiming she was unlawfully suspended because of religious discrimination.

Charee Stanley, a former employee of Atlanta-based ExpressJet, filed the lawsuit through the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a non-profit civil rights and advocacy group.

Stanley converted to Islam shortly after joining ExpressJet, and arranged with her employers that she would be exempt from serving alcohol during flights. “Once she converted and later explained to her supervisor her issue regarding serving liquor, a reasonable accommodation was made,” said a spokeperson on the CAIR Facebook site. “When a customer asked for alcohol, the other flight attendant served [it] in her place while she served the next passenger. This accommodation worked fine for dozens of flights.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/north-america/united-states/articles/Muslim-flight-attendant-refused-to-serve-alcohol-sues-expressjet-airline-unlawful-suspension/



She is in the wrong and so is the extremist group CAIR who are run by the Muslim Brotherhod.

I love how they in the same two paragrapths fail to see how they first answer why it could come into conflict and challenge when it does, showing they have no case:

"Dawud Walid, executive director of the CAIR Michigan chapter, said on the organisation’s social media site that Stanley’s suspension was unlawful. “Under the guise of American law, an American is allowed reasonable accommodation for their religion as it long as it isn’t casing undue hardship.”.

Another Stewardess complained, clearly as unfairly being left to serve all the alcohol, which comes under undue hardship to the company, as its now causing complaints, which they fail to grasp. There is also no stipulation that she cannot serve alcohol in Islam. She is only forbidden to consume.
This is not accomdating, its imposing unsubstanciatd religious beliefs. Which are not required and the fact she is poorly and unjustly playing the religious discriminatioin card. She can get stuffed for all I care. She is making a mockery of real discrimination.
Hope she gets fired

She shouldn't be allowed to work within that industry again.
It's like the catholic nurses a few years ago who refused to assist the doctors in performing abortions.

These people need to wake up and do the job they're paid to do or fuck off and so something else.

It's like me refusing to serve meat in a steakhouse because I don't eat it. Stupid.

Another self serving attention seeker. She took on the job of a glorified barmad/waitress, and part of that job is serving food and drinks. She shouldn't have a leg to stand on.

The fact that the other stewardess complained just shows how many people drink alcohol during flights. Can't they just have a nice cup of tea?

Didge wrote:An American Muslim flight attendant has sued her former employer, claiming she was unlawfully suspended because of religious discrimination.

Charee Stanley, a former employee of Atlanta-based ExpressJet, filed the lawsuit through the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a non-profit civil rights and advocacy group.

Stanley converted to Islam shortly after joining ExpressJet, and arranged with her employers that she would be exempt from serving alcohol during flights. “Once she converted and later explained to her supervisor her issue regarding serving liquor, a reasonable accommodation was made,” said a spokeperson on the CAIR Facebook site. “When a customer asked for alcohol, the other flight attendant served [it] in her place while she served the next passenger. This accommodation worked fine for dozens of flights.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/north-america/united-states/articles/Muslim-flight-attendant-refused-to-serve-alcohol-sues-expressjet-airline-unlawful-suspension/



She is in the wrong and so is the extremist group CAIR who are run by the Muslim Brotherhod.

I love how they in the same two paragrapths fail to see how they first answer why it could come into conflict and challenge when it does, showing they have no case:

"Dawud Walid, executive director of the CAIR Michigan chapter, said on the organisation’s social media site that Stanley’s suspension was unlawful. “Under the guise of American law, an American is allowed reasonable accommodation for their religion as it long as it isn’t casing undue hardship.”.

Another Stewardess complained, clearly as unfairly being left to serve all the alcohol, which comes under undue hardship to the company, as its now causing complaints, which they fail to grasp. There is also no stipulation that she cannot serve alcohol in Islam. She is only forbidden to consume.
This is not accomdating, its imposing unsubstanciatd religious beliefs. Which are not required and the fact she is poorly and unjustly playing the religious discriminatioin card. She can get stuffed for all I care. She is making a mockery of real discrimination.
Hope she gets fired

Lol! You can't commit a sin but you can ecoruage others to. See how dumb that is?

If you can't drink, you can't enourage or serve other.

eddie wrote:She shouldn't be allowed to work within that industry again.
It's like the catholic nurses a few years ago who refused to assist the doctors in performing abortions.

These people need to wake up and do the job they're paid to do or fuck off and so something else.

It's like me refusing to serve meat in a steakhouse because I don't eat it. Stupid.

It's not really the same because a steakhouse would obviously have meat. A nurse does many things other than assist with abortions, and flight attendants do many things other than serve alcohol. Also, you don't object to meat on ethical grounds, so it's not the same thing.

I think that nurses should be able to refuse to assist in abortions by the way, and doctors should be able to refuse to perform them. There is some kind of legal allowance to enable them to do so isn't there? I'm not sure of the details.

The link in the OP doesn't work for me, but at least it's there, so I'll google the story.

Raggamuffin wrote:The fact that the other stewardess complained just shows how many people drink alcohol during flights. Can't they just have a nice cup of tea?

If you undertake a job you have to fulfill your duties.

She knew that alcohol was served in flights - so tough! Deal with it or get another bloody job!

eddie wrote:If you undertake a job you have to fulfill your duties.

She knew that alcohol was served in flights - so tough! Deal with it or get another bloody job!

I've always taken the view that if someone has real issues with an aspect of a job, they could be accommodated as long as it's not causing a lot of inconvenience to other staff or to the company. If everyone wants alcohol, and a non-Muslim stewardess is doing all the work whilst the Muslim one twiddles her thumbs, that's clearly a problem. If it was only a couple of people who wanted alcohol, that wouldn't be a problem.

To be fair, she may even have said she'd do anything and everything else but that's not the point.
Her duties included serving alcoholic beverages so she should either get over it and serve them (lots of Muslims sell alcohol in shops) or get a different job.
Simple.

eddie wrote:To be fair, she may even have said she'd do anything and everything else but that's not the point.
Her duties included serving alcoholic beverages so she should either get over it and serve them (lots of Muslims sell alcohol in shops) or get a different job.
Simple.

I wouldn't be that harsh. A lot of people have issues in their particular jobs, and as long as their colleagues are happy to accommodate them, it's not a problem. I'm guessing that you don't work, right?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:An American Muslim flight attendant has sued her former employer, claiming she was unlawfully suspended because of religious discrimination.

Charee Stanley, a former employee of Atlanta-based ExpressJet, filed the lawsuit through the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a non-profit civil rights and advocacy group.

Stanley converted to Islam shortly after joining ExpressJet, and arranged with her employers that she would be exempt from serving alcohol during flights. “Once she converted and later explained to her supervisor her issue regarding serving liquor, a reasonable accommodation was made,” said a spokeperson on the CAIR Facebook site. “When a customer asked for alcohol, the other flight attendant served [it] in her place while she served the next passenger. This accommodation worked fine for dozens of flights.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/north-america/united-states/articles/Muslim-flight-attendant-refused-to-serve-alcohol-sues-expressjet-airline-unlawful-suspension/



She is in the wrong and so is the extremist group CAIR who are run by the Muslim Brotherhod.

I love how they in the same two paragrapths fail to see how they first answer why it could come into conflict and challenge when it does, showing they have no case:

"Dawud Walid, executive director of the CAIR Michigan chapter, said on the organisation’s social media site that Stanley’s suspension was unlawful. “Under the guise of American law, an American is allowed reasonable accommodation for their religion as it long as it isn’t casing undue hardship.”.

Another Stewardess complained, clearly as unfairly being left to serve all the alcohol, which comes under undue hardship to the company, as its now causing complaints, which they fail to grasp. There is also no stipulation that she cannot serve alcohol in Islam. She is only forbidden to consume.
This is not accomdating, its imposing unsubstanciatd religious beliefs. Which are not required and the fact she is poorly and unjustly playing the religious discriminatioin card. She can get stuffed for all I care. She is making a mockery of real discrimination.
Hope she gets fired

Lol! You can't commit a sin but you can ecoruage others to. See how dumb that is?

If you can't drink, you can't enourage or serve other.

So she had no business applying for and accepting a position where serving drink is part of the job.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:To be fair, she may even have said she'd do anything and everything else but that's not the point.
Her duties included serving alcoholic beverages so she should either get over it and serve them (lots of Muslims sell alcohol in shops) or get a different job.
Simple.

I wouldn't be that harsh. A lot of people have issues in their particular jobs, and as long as their colleagues are happy to accommodate them, it's not a problem. I'm guessing that you don't work, right?

Like the Muslim pharmacist who refused to sell condoms, the teacher who refused to take off her face covering when teaching young children, the hairdresser who refused to take her head covering off, even though the stylists were told part of the job was to advertise hair styles with themselves as examples, this woman has no right being in a job that she refuses to do.

Would a vegetarian work in a butchers if he was opposed to everyone else eating meat?

Syl wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! You can't commit a sin but you can ecoruage others to. See how dumb that is?

If you can't drink, you can't enourage or serve other.

So she had no business applying for and accepting a position where serving drink is part of the job.

Perhaps you would like to retract this stupid answer.

Read the OP again.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Syl wrote:

So she had no business applying for and accepting a position where serving drink is part of the job.

Perhaps you would like to retract this stupid answer.

Read the OP again.

No need to be rude...the link is broken.
So when she applied for the job and was accepted she would serve alcohol? It was she who changed the conditions by changing her religion soon after startng work there..

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:An American Muslim flight attendant has sued her former employer, claiming she was unlawfully suspended because of religious discrimination.

Charee Stanley, a former employee of Atlanta-based ExpressJet, filed the lawsuit through the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a non-profit civil rights and advocacy group.

Stanley converted to Islam shortly after joining ExpressJet, and arranged with her employers that she would be exempt from serving alcohol during flights. “Once she converted and later explained to her supervisor her issue regarding serving liquor, a reasonable accommodation was made,” said a spokeperson on the CAIR Facebook site. “When a customer asked for alcohol, the other flight attendant served [it] in her place while she served the next passenger. This accommodation worked fine for dozens of flights.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/north-america/united-states/articles/Muslim-flight-attendant-refused-to-serve-alcohol-sues-expressjet-airline-unlawful-suspension/



She is in the wrong and so is the extremist group CAIR who are run by the Muslim Brotherhod.

I love how they in the same two paragrapths fail to see how they first answer why it could come into conflict and challenge when it does, showing they have no case:

"Dawud Walid, executive director of the CAIR Michigan chapter, said on the organisation’s social media site that Stanley’s suspension was unlawful. “Under the guise of American law, an American is allowed reasonable accommodation for their religion as it long as it isn’t casing undue hardship.”.

Another Stewardess complained, clearly as unfairly being left to serve all the alcohol, which comes under undue hardship to the company, as its now causing complaints, which they fail to grasp. There is also no stipulation that she cannot serve alcohol in Islam. She is only forbidden to consume.
This is not accomdating, its imposing unsubstanciatd religious beliefs. Which are not required and the fact she is poorly and unjustly playing the religious discriminatioin card. She can get stuffed for all I care. She is making a mockery of real discrimination.
Hope she gets fired

Lol! You can't commit a sin but you can ecoruage others to. See how dumb that is?

If you can't drink, you can't enourage or serve other.

Then you also can't work in a job that requires you to serve alcohol... or for a company that does so...


Time for her to get a job she can do...

Syl wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! You can't commit a sin but you can ecoruage others to. See how dumb that is?

If you can't drink, you can't enourage or serve other.

So she had no business applying for and accepting a position where serving drink is part of the job.

She wasn't a Muslim at the time - I think. Then she converted, then she discovered the alcohol thing, and it all worked out for a while whereby the other flight attendant served the alcohol with the agreement of the company. Now though, a colleague has complained, so the company has withdrawn the agreement. Something like that anyway.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I wouldn't be that harsh. A lot of people have issues in their particular jobs, and as long as their colleagues are happy to accommodate them, it's not a problem. I'm guessing that you don't work, right?

Like the Muslim pharmacist who refused to sell condoms, the teacher who refused to take off her face covering when teaching young children, the hairdresser who refused to take her head covering off, even though the stylists were told part of the job was to advertise hair styles with themselves as examples, this woman has no right being in a job that she refuses to do.

Would a vegetarian work in a butchers if he was opposed to everyone else eating meat?

A vegetarian wouldn't apply for a job in a butchers if they objected to selling meat, so that's not a good example. Flight Stewards aren't there just to sell alcohol though, so it's different. It seems that it wasn't an issue until another colleague objected - perhaps because they felt they were doing all the work?

I gave 3 examples of where people kicked up a fuss because they had applied and were working in places where they objected to the work, so the butcher eg is not that far fetched.

I agree that air stewards do various jobs, but obviously for some reason it didn't work out when she refused to sell alcohol, which (on the flights I have been on) seems to be one of the main tasks.

Syl wrote:I gave 3 examples of where people kicked up a fuss because they had applied and were working in places where they objected to the work, so the butcher eg is not that far fetched.

I agree that air stewards do various jobs, but obviously for some reason it didn't work out when she refused to sell alcohol, which (on the flights I have been on) seems to be one of the main tasks.

I just told you that she wasn't a Muslim when she applied for the job, and therefore had no objection to alcohol at the time.

Anyway, the point is that the law does say that the company must make reasonable adjustments for religious belief. The question is whether or not her request is reasonable. It seems that some colleagues were fine with it and others were not, so the company has to take into account the views of those who are not fine with it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:I gave 3 examples of where people kicked up a fuss because they had applied and were working in places where they objected to the work, so the butcher eg is not that far fetched.

I agree that air stewards do various jobs, but obviously for some reason it didn't work out when she refused to sell alcohol, which (on the flights I have been on) seems to be one of the main tasks.

I just told you that she wasn't a Muslim when she applied for the job, and therefore had no objection to alcohol at the time.

I know...I have already acknowledged that fact..
It was SHE who changed the rules not the company she was working for.....so whether she was Muslim or not when she first got the job, she must have known she would be refusing to serve alcohol pretty soon afterwards....so my point still stands.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I just told you that she wasn't a Muslim when she applied for the job, and therefore had no objection to alcohol at the time.

I know...I have already acknowledged that fact..
It was SHE who changed the rules not the company she was working for.....so whether she was Muslim or not when she first got the job, she must have known she would be refusing to serve alcohol pretty soon afterwards....so my point still stands.

Yes, but the point is that the law requires the company to make such allowances if they're reasonable, and for a while they were reasonable. Now the company have decided that the allowances are not reasonable, hence the current problem. It's not as black and white as you think. A lot of companies try to make allowances for individual employees, but if that then encroaches on the rights or the wellbeing of other employees, they have to think again. That could be any kind of allowance, including religious ones or allowances based on the health of an employee.

I doubt that employees have to make allowances for vegetarians in law, so it's not the same thing.

I hope this link works.


So...she had  converted  (according to these reports) and was already a Muslim when she applied for the job. She served drinks for 18 months before realizing it was now against her religion.
I thought most people, Muslim or not realised that.


She hopes to be awarded back pay and other damages....says it all really.  


http://travel.aol.co.uk/2016/08/11/Muslim-flight-attendant-sues-airline-over-alcohol-rule/

According to The Guardian, court documents indicate that, in 2013, she converted to Islam and got her job with the airline.

For about a year-and-a-half, she claims to have performed all her duties until she realized one day that her religion not only prohibited her from consuming alcohol herself but also serving it to others.

Syl wrote:I hope this link works.


So...she had  converted  (according to these reports) and was already a Muslim when she applied for the job. She served drinks for 18 months before realizing it was now against her religion.
I thought most people, Muslim or not realised that.


She hopes to be awarded back pay and other damages....says it all really.  


http://travel.aol.co.uk/2016/08/11/Muslim-flight-attendant-sues-airline-over-alcohol-rule/

According to The Guardian, court documents indicate that, in 2013, she converted to Islam and got her job with the airline.

For about a year-and-a-half, she claims to have performed all her duties until she realized one day that her religion not only prohibited her from consuming alcohol herself but also serving it to others.

According to this article, she did not convert to Islam until she had worked for the airline for about a year.

Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/Muslim-flight-attendant-feat/

Anyway, the issue will be whether or not the airline made reasonable accommodation for her faith or not. I think it will go against her tbh because some of her colleagues objected. It will be interesting to see on what grounds they objected.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, the issue will be whether or not the airline made reasonable accommodation for her faith or not. I think it will go against her tbh because some of her colleagues objected. It will be interesting to see on what grounds they objected.

I wonder what the "other religious behaviour" that the co worker complained about is.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, the issue will be whether or not the airline made reasonable accommodation for her faith or not. I think it will go against her tbh because some of her colleagues objected. It will be interesting to see on what grounds they objected.

I wonder what the "other religious behaviour" that the co worker complained about is.

Something like this - allegedly.

The employee complaint also said Stanley had a book with "foreign writings" and wore a headdress

I think we're hearing it from one side at the moment, so it'll be interesting to see the outcome.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I wonder what the "other religious behaviour" that the co worker complained about is.

Something like this - allegedly.

The employee complaint also said Stanley had a book with "foreign writings" and wore a headdress

I think we're hearing it from one side at the moment, so it'll be interesting to see the outcome.

I don't see why her head dress, which she had permission to wear, and her reading matter should bother anyone else.

That to me in intolerant, her refusing to perform part of her job so everyone else has to do her work is valid.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Something like this - allegedly.



I think we're hearing it from one side at the moment, so it'll be interesting to see the outcome.

I don't see why her head dress, which she had permission to wear, and her reading matter should bother anyone else.

That to me in intolerant, her refusing to perform part of her job so everyone else has to do her work is valid.

Well that will be the issue when it comes to court, if it ever does. Are the colleagues complaining on valid grounds - ie, that they're having to do more work than her or not.

eddie wrote:She shouldn't be allowed to work within that industry again.
It's like the catholic nurses a few years ago who refused to assist the doctors in performing abortions.

These people need to wake up and do the job they're paid to do or fuck off and so something else.

It's like me refusing to serve meat in a steakhouse because I don't eat it. Stupid.

The other procedure that some nurses refuse to assist in, is ECT of severely depressed patients. In some NHS trusts it's specifically mentioned in their contracts that they have a right to refuse. I don't blame them, shock treatment to the brain looks like something straight out of a hammer horror.

Jules wrote:

eddie wrote:She shouldn't be allowed to work within that industry again.
It's like the catholic nurses a few years ago who refused to assist the doctors in performing abortions.

These people need to wake up and do the job they're paid to do or fuck off and so something else.

It's like me refusing to serve meat in a steakhouse because I don't eat it. Stupid.

The other procedure that some nurses refuse to assist in, is ECT of severely depressed patients. In some NHS trusts it's specifically mentioned in their contracts that they have a right to refuse. I don't blame them, shock treatment to the brain looks like something straight out of a hammer horror.

If something is specifically written into your contract that you have a right to refuse that's a cut and dried case.
If half way through your contract you decide that for some reason or other you don't want to serve drinks that's different.

Most cases like this one in the OP boil down to someone wanting monetary compensation.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:

The other procedure that some nurses refuse to assist in, is ECT of severely depressed patients. In some NHS trusts it's specifically mentioned in their contracts that they have a right to refuse. I don't blame them, shock treatment to the brain looks like something straight out of a hammer horror.

If something is specifically written into your contract that you have a right to refuse that's a cut and dried case.
If half way through your contract you decide that for some reason or other you don't want to serve drinks that's different.

Most cases like this one in the OP boil down to someone wanting monetary compensation.

You're still missing the point. In law, the company has to make reasonable accommodation for her religion as long as that doesn't cause a burden on the company. Her point is that it doesn't cause a burden because it worked perfectly well until a colleague complained, and that the airline was perfectly happy to accommodate her request.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

If something is specifically written into your contract that you have a right to refuse that's a cut and dried case.
If half way through your contract you decide that for some reason or other you don't want to serve drinks that's different.

Most cases like this one in the OP boil down to someone wanting monetary compensation.

You're still missing the point. In law, the company has to make reasonable accommodation for her religion as long as that doesn't cause a burden on the company. Her point is that it doesn't cause a burden because it worked perfectly well until a colleague complained, and that the airline was perfectly happy to accommodate her request.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

I'm not missing any point, I am giving my opinion.

Obviously if she was suspended because of a co workers complaint, the management must have thought that the co worker had a point and the woman was disrupting the workplace.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're still missing the point. In law, the company has to make reasonable accommodation for her religion as long as that doesn't cause a burden on the company. Her point is that it doesn't cause a burden because it worked perfectly well until a colleague complained, and that the airline was perfectly happy to accommodate her request.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

I'm not missing any point, I am giving my opinion.

Then say it's your opinion rather than present it as a fact.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I'm not missing any point, I am giving my opinion.

Then say it's your opinion rather than present it as a fact.

Oh stop nit picking.
It IS a fact that if something is written into your contract you have more rights FGS.
It's my opinion that most cases like this that make the news are people looking for monetary compensation.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Then say it's your opinion rather than present it as a fact.

Oh stop nit picking.
It IS a fact that if something is written into your contract you have more rights FGS.
It's my opinion that most cases like this that make the news are people looking for monetary compensation.

I agree, but I'm more interested in the legal aspect of it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Oh stop nit picking.
It IS a fact that if something is written into your contract you have more rights FGS.
It's my opinion that most cases like this that make the news are people looking for monetary compensation.

I agree, but I'm more interested in the legal aspect of it.

Well hopefully the outcome will be made public then.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:An American Muslim flight attendant has sued her former employer, claiming she was unlawfully suspended because of religious discrimination.

Charee Stanley, a former employee of Atlanta-based ExpressJet, filed the lawsuit through the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a non-profit civil rights and advocacy group.

Stanley converted to Islam shortly after joining ExpressJet, and arranged with her employers that she would be exempt from serving alcohol during flights. “Once she converted and later explained to her supervisor her issue regarding serving liquor, a reasonable accommodation was made,” said a spokeperson on the CAIR Facebook site. “When a customer asked for alcohol, the other flight attendant served [it] in her place while she served the next passenger. This accommodation worked fine for dozens of flights.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/north-america/united-states/articles/Muslim-flight-attendant-refused-to-serve-alcohol-sues-expressjet-airline-unlawful-suspension/



She is in the wrong and so is the extremist group CAIR who are run by the Muslim Brotherhod.

I love how they in the same two paragrapths fail to see how they first answer why it could come into conflict and challenge when it does, showing they have no case:

"Dawud Walid, executive director of the CAIR Michigan chapter, said on the organisation’s social media site that Stanley’s suspension was unlawful. “Under the guise of American law, an American is allowed reasonable accommodation for their religion as it long as it isn’t casing undue hardship.”.

Another Stewardess complained, clearly as unfairly being left to serve all the alcohol, which comes under undue hardship to the company, as its now causing complaints, which they fail to grasp. There is also no stipulation that she cannot serve alcohol in Islam. She is only forbidden to consume.
This is not accomdating, its imposing unsubstanciatd religious beliefs. Which are not required and the fact she is poorly and unjustly playing the religious discriminatioin card. She can get stuffed for all I care. She is making a mockery of real discrimination.
Hope she gets fired

Lol! You can't commit a sin but you can ecoruage others to. See how dumb that is?

If you can't drink, you can't enourage or serve other.

Sin, no such things as its nothing more than a religious concept I do not recognise

Again there is no aspect on touching alcohol and the fact is she is not even touching alcohol, as its containd within bottles and cans.
Does it say in Islam Muslims cannot touch glass or metal?

No

So there is absolutely no reason why she cannot serve alcohol, bing as its part of the Job.
Now the Airline was even accomadaing until someone was not happy, clearly due to the inequality.
As this now causes an issue where a worker feels discriminated against, then the company has done the right thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, the issue will be whether or not the airline made reasonable accommodation for her faith or not. I think it will go against her tbh because some of her colleagues objected. It will be interesting to see on what grounds they objected.

Reasonable accommodation is an elastic measure to fit numerous and varied situations.  It is found in laws prohibiting religious discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act and gender discrimination (eg, lift requirements for women).  With regard to religious discrimination, an employer generally may not question the person's specific religious belief.  However, with respect to job performance:

FindLaw wrote:In making a "reasonableness" determination, courts do look at the essential functions of the job in questions. If the employee cannot perform the job's essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, the employee is not qualified for the job. An employer does not discriminate by denying a job to a person who is not qualified to perform it.

So there is a fine line between reasonable accommodation and inability to perform the job.

Job structure also comes into play, given that, as often as not, the accommodation requires a rearrangement of duties.  That appears to be the case in this instance.  The hostess was able to switch off with others when it came to liquor-serving.  However, the situation is uncertain when the other employee is burdened with added or distasteful duties.  The Law has developed  this notion of "undue hardship":

FindLaw wrote:Congress might have stopped with this language, and allowed employers and the courts to determine what steps the "reasonable accommodation" standard requires. Instead, the law provides an exception if accommodation would cause "undue hardship" to the employer's business.  The [Law] therefore strikes a balance -- between the accommodations an employee needs or desires in order to meet the requirements of a certain job, and the investment and modifications an employer must make in order to accomplish those accommodations.

Delving into the specifics, the article is unclear as to the basis of the co-worker's complaint, which would otherwise provide the counterweight to the balance.  The attorney says:

The Telegraph wrote:"[The situation] obviously was not causing undue hardship because there were two flight attendants and it was moving along smoothly until another flight attendant decided that they had an issue with Ms Stanley not serving alcohol."

There were anti-Islamic overtones to the complaint as well, suggesting that it wasn't any real "hardship" that was prompting the complaint, but rather ideology.  The test does not extend to questioning the doctrinal beliefs of the religion, as mentioned. To do that would involve the Courts in unconstitutional religious debates as to the tenets of a faith.  Using the balancing approach, above, the employer is going to have a difficult time arguing undue hardship, unless the co-worker comes up with a real and tangible "hardship".

That's my take on it.

Again the airline accomadated until someon complained

The airline could not discriminate against the other worker, as that would be inequality.

This the accomadation can no longer continue

You might want to understand this simple fact or the fact she is not even physically touching alcohol

http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/7905

So....this woman is in a confined space working and mixing  alongside others who are serving and drinking alcohol. The airline, which profits from the selling of alcohol was  paying her wages, surely if her religion was so important to her she would....like the written piece says.....find alternative employment


".Serving alcohol or having anything to do with it is completely unlawful (haram) and brings about the curse (la’na) of Allah Most High."

"Therefore, it is very important that you look for an alternative job. Unlawful income does have an effect on one’s worship (ibadah) and the acceptance of one’s supplications (dua)."

Didge wrote:Again the airline accomadated until someon complained

The airline could not discriminate against the other worker, as that would be inequality.

This the accomadation can no longer continue

Again, the other "worker" who complained cannot just register grief, but must provide real and tangible reasons for the complaint.  Remember, the fulcrum of the test is "undue burden".  Unless the other worker shows some burden, it's just a matter of taste (lol--no pun on liquors intended).

didge wrote:You might want to understand this simple fact or the fact she is not even physically touching alcohol

Whether or not she is physically touching the alcohol, and whether that is a violation of religious tenets, are matters the Court may not touch.  First, remember the only test is "undue burden".  Second, for the Court to get into a debate about whether the "touching of alcohol" or any other religious doctrine regarding alcohol is a violation of religion, is to involve the Court in prohibited speculations, under the First Amendment. Therefore the defense is discounted.

Syl wrote:"Therefore, it is very important that you look for an alternative job. Unlawful income does have an effect on one’s worship (ibadah) and the acceptance of one’s supplications (dua)."

Or the employer restructures the job duties, which is what the employer originally did do.  The problem arose when the co-worker registered the complaint about the accommodation.  If there was no substance (undue hardship) to the complaint, it fails.

Original Quill wrote:

Again, the other "worker" who complained cannot just register grief, but must provide real and tangible reasons for the complaint.  Remember, the fulcrum of the test is "undue burden".  Unless the other worker shows some burden, it's just a matter of taste (lol--no pun on liquors intended).

Whether or not she is physically touching the alcohol, and whether that is a violation of religious tenets, are matters the Court may not touch.  First, remember the only test is "undue burden".  Second, for the Court to get into a debate about whether the "touching of alcohol" or any other religious doctrine regarding alcohol is a violation of religion, is to involve the Court in prohibited speculations, under the First Amendment.  Therefore the defense is discounted.

No the co-worker (non-Muslims) is quite within her rights, as she is being discriminatd on the duties of her work, where she rightly believes it is unfair that whilst working with this co-worker, she has to always serve drinks, when the job should be shared. She has the right of the law on her side as no religious belief should suprscede the equal rights of workers under the law.

Its not a matter for the court to even decide on this, as again the aspect of whether she can or cannot touch alcohol is no irrelevant.
What is relevant is now a co-worker rightly has complained of discrimination carrying out her duties, when one of the duties is to serve alcohol.

Again even down the road of touching alcohol, there is no such aspect with Islam, it is on consumption.
And again she is not touching alcohol physicaally, as its held with in containers

On every front she is trying to force her beliefs onto the company, who already tried to accomadate but can no longer do so, as this is no causing conflict of issues around duties with equality.
If she feels that strongly over alcohol, which is part of the duties, then she should do the right thing an apply to an airline that does not serve alcohol, of which there now is some. Her beliefes do not supercede the equal rights of others

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:"Therefore, it is very important that you look for an alternative job. Unlawful income does have an effect on one’s worship (ibadah) and the acceptance of one’s supplications (dua)."

Or the employer restructure the job duties, which is what the employer originally did do.  The problem arose when the co-worker registered the complaint.  If there was no substance to the complaint, it fails.

Maybe the reconstructored rota simply didn't work in practice.
It would be interesting to know exactly why the co worker complained.

Syl wrote:http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/7905

So....this woman is in a confined space working and mixing  alongside others who are serving and drinking alcohol. The airline, which profits from the selling of alcohol was  paying her wages, surely if her religion was so important to her she would....like the written piece says.....find alternative employment


".Serving alcohol or having anything to do with it is completely unlawful (haram) and brings about the curse (la’na) of Allah Most High."

"Therefore, it is very important that you look for an alternative job. Unlawful income does have an effect on one’s worship (ibadah) and the acceptance of one’s supplications (dua)."

+1

Exactly, which sows her claim is a complete crock of shit.
She is happy to be around people drinking and them serving, so it makes a mockery of her claim

Good point

didge wrote:No the co-worker is quite within her rights, as she is being discriminatd on the duties of her work, where she rightly believes it is unfair that whilst working with this co-worker, she has to always serve drinks, when the job should be shared. She has the right of the law on her side as no religious belief should suprscede the equal rights of workers under the law.

What is her "undue hardship"? That is the only test that Congress allows. Congress is like Parliament. If it writes a law, yours is but to follow it.

The only exception is whether it is unconstitutional.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Or the employer restructure the job duties, which is what the employer originally did do.  The problem arose when the co-worker registered the complaint.  If there was no substance to the complaint, it fails.

Maybe the reconstructored rota simply didn't work in practice.
It would be interesting to know exactly why the co worker complained.

Nail, hammer, head... You center in on the precise point. If it doesn't raise "undue hardship" it doesn't fly.