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

by Guest Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:10 am

First topic message reminder :

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

by Guest Sat Aug 13, 2016 6:14 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

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.

Does it matter?

No, the only thing matters is that if whether that co-worker rightly deems it unfair to carry out duties all the time, whilst another does not have to.
Again the company were at first willing to accomadate, but they could not longer if it came into conflict with other workers.

by Syl Sat Aug 13, 2016 6:14 pm

Didge wrote:
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

Thank you x
There are also two different news reports as to exactly when she took the job and agreed to the duties the job included.

One reports that she was already Muslim when she started the job, and served alcohol for 18 months before she decided she could no longer do so.

The other report says that she joined the company and THEN converted to Islam.

by eddie Sat Aug 13, 2016 9:31 pm

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?

Erm I don't work at the moment but I have worked before rags so I still kinda know about jobs. scratch

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:20 pm

Sounds like she was trying to make the best of an awkward, unforeseen problem -- might not have thought about the alcohol thing until she'd converted.

If there was a formal arrangement that she wouldn't have to serve alcohol and she was suspended in spite of that, I think she has a case.

by Original Quill Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:31 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

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

Does it matter?

No, the only thing matters is that if whether that co-worker rightly deems it unfair to carry out duties all the time, whilst another does not have to.
Again the company were at first willing to accomadate, but they could not longer if it came into conflict with other workers.

The law is the law. Congress doesn't say that fairness enters into it. What is fairness, anyway? Just what the white person says? Congress is unwilling to enter into that morass. Rather, Congress has expressly stated with fact-specificity, what the test is:

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 [only] if accommodation would cause "undue hardship" to the employer's business.

As this passage notes, Congress could have left the issue up in the air, but it didn't. It issued a directive to the courts only that "undue hardship" would be the test.

ADL wrote:An employer must try to arrange to allow the employee to meet these religious obligations...

An employer may not simply refuse to accommodate an employee. If the employer claims that accommodation is not feasible because it would result in an undue hardship (see below), the employer must demonstrate the effect accommodation would have on the business; that is, the employer must prove the undue hardship.

Therefore, employers are obligated to (1) try in good faith to resolve the conflict between the employee's religious needs and job requirements; and, where an accommodation cannot be granted, (2) identify an actual monetary or administrative expense.

http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/religiousfreedom/religfreeres/ReligAccommodWPlace-docx.pdf

If the court were to decide that Congress had it's head up its arse and another standard applies--call it didge's law, or the Donald Trump of the UK--fine...it would be overturned. Judges have been known to go off on flights of fancy. But judges are evaluated and judicial craftsmanship is measured by whether the law is followed.

by Guest Sun Aug 14, 2016 5:22 am

You are just repeating the same as before neglecting that the company did accomdate until it became a conflict of equality towards other memeber so staff as already repeated.

So again with the not only the swimming pool in two situations you want to superscede the rights of workers by those with religious belief and thus impose inequality in the work place

So Trump is for inequality as you are, which makes you more comparable to him than me, because you fail to understand equality under the law.

Second as already pointed out, she was not a Muslim when she joined
Scond, as seen she is quite happy to be around people drinking, makng a mockery of her claim and also in Islam it allows for occasions if something is a necessity, of which job requirements are a necessity within a job

You keep going off the company and not the actual employees itself.

And I know you have lost the debate when you invoke emotive views, as you did based around trump

by Guest Sun Aug 14, 2016 5:28 am

Ben Reilly wrote:Sounds like she was trying to make the best of an awkward, unforeseen problem -- might not have thought about the alcohol thing until she'd converted.

If there was a formal arrangement that she wouldn't have to serve alcohol and she was suspended in spite of that, I think she has a case.

She has no case when it comes into conflict with other staff, who are then being unfairly treated.
You cannot superscede the rights of other workers based on religious belief
What next, that they can refuse to work with homosexuals?
Again its also the worst hypocrisy, as she is happy to be around people drinking and yet claim to not want to serve them, when she is never or never would physically touch alcohol and again the teachings is on consumptions.
Again anothr area of Islam around hadiths that claim otherwise
When are people going to learn that religious beliefs are like any belief and have no bases for any evidence or a right to supersede the rights of others when it directly effcts others, as this does.
She is being excempted from duties not for any valid reason but simple a belief.
How many vegitarians would be allowed to refuse serving meat in the same situation if it conflicted with other workers?

by Original Quill Sun Aug 14, 2016 5:40 am

Didge wrote:You are just repeating the same as before neglecting that the company did accomdate until it became a conflict of equality towards other memeber so staff as already repeated.

So again with the not only the swimming pool in two situations you want to superscede the rights of workers by those with religious belief and thus impose inequality in the work place

So Trump is for inequality as you are, which makes you more comparable to him than me, because you fail to understand equality under the law.

Second as already pointed out, she was not a Muslim when she joined
Scond, as seen she is quite happy to be around people drinking, makng a mockery of her claim and also in Islam it allows for occasions if something is a necessity, of which job requirements are a necessity within a job

You keep going off the company and not the actual employees itself.

And I know you have lost the debate when you invoke emotive views, as you did based around trump

Yes, and the company lost the pending lawsuit when it stopped with its reasonable accommodation.

I liken you to Trump because, like him, you speak without thinking. You spin around with your own irrelevant concerns, while the law is right there before your eyes and you ignore it. The employer in this case, in order to avoid reasonable accommodation, must show 'undue hardship'. The company attaches its wagon to the white hostess, and so do you. She may be your princess, however the law goes to 'undue hardship'.

You don't analyze the law any better than you analyze theory. Law is not difficult--maybe 4-levels deep--but you cannot master even that. When I did my doctorate, I delved perhaps 18-levels deep. You, however, limit yourself to thinking in bowel urges, like Donald Trump. Once the urge grabs a hold of your sphincter muscle, you won't let go.

That's too bad. You can't be so intractable. You've got to put away your fear of other people proving you wrong, and go with the logic. But, I doubt you've got the right stuff.

by Guest Sun Aug 14, 2016 5:46 am

No it has not lost the lawsuit as its now in conflict with the rights of other workers, denying them equal rights, which again you every single time fail to grasp

You are supersceding the rights of other workers based off religious belief
That is inequality for the thousandth time and even worse you continue to support that

You invoke Trump becuase youa re emotive, have lost the debate so are now deflecting onto me in the most childish attempt to deligitimnize, me in desperation when losing a debate. Its a lefty tactic

I have shown I always analyze and want people to have equality.
You though constantly demonstrate supersceeding the rights of others based around religious belief, which we are seeing in evidence in the US at the moment with states creating laws that discriminate against women on abortions and the LGTB
The Tea Party would love your views above

Now unless you can demonstrate the rights of non-Muslims can have their equal rights supersceded in the work place via religion. When they are not rightly happy at being unfairly treated within their duties, then you are talking gibberish and backing inequality?

So stick to the points of the debate and do not allow your emotive immaturity to cloud your reasoning.

by Raggamuffin Sun Aug 14, 2016 1:00 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Sounds like she was trying to make the best of an awkward, unforeseen problem -- might not have thought about the alcohol thing until she'd converted.

If there was a formal arrangement that she wouldn't have to serve alcohol and she was suspended in spite of that, I think she has a case.

She does have a case for the reason you gave, but that doesn't mean she'll win. The rather casual arrangement was for her to compromise with her co-steward, but I guess if the co-steward is not happy with that, the arrangement becomes unworkable.

by Ben Reilly Sun Aug 14, 2016 4:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:Sounds like she was trying to make the best of an awkward, unforeseen problem -- might not have thought about the alcohol thing until she'd converted.

If there was a formal arrangement that she wouldn't have to serve alcohol and she was suspended in spite of that, I think she has a case.

She does have a case for the reason you gave, but that doesn't mean she'll win. The rather casual arrangement was for her to compromise with her co-steward, but I guess if the co-steward is not happy with that, the arrangement becomes unworkable.

I bet human resources is going nuts Smile

by Original Quill Sun Aug 14, 2016 4:57 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:Sounds like she was trying to make the best of an awkward, unforeseen problem -- might not have thought about the alcohol thing until she'd converted.

If there was a formal arrangement that she wouldn't have to serve alcohol and she was suspended in spite of that, I think she has a case.

She does have a case for the reason you gave, but that doesn't mean she'll win. The rather casual arrangement was for her to compromise with her co-steward, but I guess if the co-steward is not happy with that, the arrangement becomes unworkable.

Everything depends upon the undue hardship that the other hostess claims. Does it take greater effort to fetch drinks? Do the passengers resent her replacing the other hostess? What is the undue hardship.?

Under the holding of Mcdonnell Douglas v Green the analysis follows a three-step process: prima facie case; defense case' and pretextuality case.

Wiki wrote:The McDonnell Douglas case established that, in an employment discrimination case:

1. The plaintiff (employee) must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

2. The defendant (employer) must produce evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its actions. If this occurs, then the presumption of discrimination dissipates.

3. The plaintiff must then be afforded a fair opportunity to present facts to show an inference of discrimination. The plaintiff may do so either by showing that the defendant’s explanation is insufficient and only a pretext for discrimination or by otherwise proving that the defendant's actions used one of the listed unlawful discriminatory parameters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_Corp._v._Green

Congress has determined that the only allowable defense must be in the form of undue hardship. What is the complainant's defense, and thus the employer's defense?

by Guest Sun Aug 14, 2016 5:41 pm

Nothing to do with hardship but again equality within the workplace based around duties

She also has no case as well as she servd alcohol even after she converted to Islam.

What we next find out is how even more so she has no such case.

Dawud Walid, executive director of the CAIR Michigan chapter, said that Ms Stanley began working at the airline when she was not a Muslim and she did serve alcohol.
She converted to Islam two years ago and later found out it was forbidden to serve alcohol so she went to her supervisor to note her concerns.

So as we see she had already been serving alcohol even as a Muslim.
Now was an accomadation met?

Yes completeley, but was this accomadation dependent on something?

Her supervisor reportedly told her she could ask another colleague to serve passengers who wanted an alcoholic beverage.

This accommodation worked out for "dozens of flights", according to Mr Walid.

She was put on 12 months of unpaid leave, however, after another flight attendant complained.

That does not mean the other worker has to accomdate her
The supervisor left it rightly depedent on the person she was working with.
Not that she could stop serving alcohol, hence why she has been rightly sacked

by Original Quill Sun Aug 14, 2016 5:50 pm

Didge wrote:Nothing to do with hardship but again equality within the workplace based around duties

She also has no case as well as she servd alcohol even after she converted to Islam.

What we next find out is how even more so she has no such case.

Dawud Walid, executive director of the CAIR Michigan chapter, said that Ms Stanley began working at the airline when she was not a Muslim and she did serve alcohol.
She converted to Islam two years ago and later found out it was forbidden to serve alcohol so she went to her supervisor to note her concerns.

So as we see she had already been serving alcohol even as a Muslim.
Now was an accomadation met?

Yes completeley, but was this accomadation dependent on something?

Her supervisor reportedly told her she could ask another colleague to serve passengers who wanted an alcoholic beverage.

This accommodation worked out for "dozens of flights", according to Mr Walid.

She was put on 12 months of unpaid leave, however, after another flight attendant complained.

That does not mean the other worker has to accomdate her
The supervisor left it rightly depedent on the person she was working with.
Not that she could stop serving alcohol, hence why she has been rightly sacked

Ignorance. Your sphincter muscle won't let go, eh? Try Indian Gooseberry Powder with a little olive oil and hot water. Should do the trick. Wink

by Guest Sun Aug 14, 2016 5:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Nothing to do with hardship but again equality within the workplace based around duties

She also has no case as well as she servd alcohol even after she converted to Islam.

What we next find out is how even more so she has no such case.

So as we see she had already been serving alcohol even as a Muslim.
Now was an accomadation met?

Yes completeley, but was this accomadation dependent on something?

That does not mean the other worker has to accomdate her
The supervisor left it rightly depedent on the person she was working with.
Not that she could stop serving alcohol, hence why she has been rightly sacked

Ignorance. Your sphincter muscle won't let go, eh? Try Indian Gooseberry Powder with a little olive oil and hot water. Should do the trick.

I would just try acting your age Quiil, after i continually show you up, as you might then look in better standing as a person by admitting to being wrong

Good luck with that, as now your reply is nothing about the debate by the fact you still have not reached puberty

by Original Quill Sun Aug 14, 2016 6:07 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Ignorance. Your sphincter muscle won't let go, eh? Try Indian Gooseberry Powder with a little olive oil and hot water. Should do the trick.

I would just try acting your age Quiil, after i continually show you up, as you might then look in better standing as a person by admitting to being wrong

Good luck with that, as now your reply is nothing about the debate by the fact you still have not reached puberty

Muslim flight attendant who refused to serve alcohol sues airline for ‘unlawful’ suspension - Page 2 Tumblr_m2p0bwwW5a1rrsnk3o1_500

by Guest Sun Aug 14, 2016 6:10 pm

So clearly about 16 yars old then and bing a vry late starter

Laughing

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 14, 2016 6:17 pm

https://youtu.be/b9SIcIvuKWQ

by Original Quill Sun Aug 14, 2016 6:28 pm

Literary Devises wrote:par·a·lip·sis
ˌparəˈlipsis/
nounRHETORIC
the device of giving emphasis by professing to say little or nothing about a subject, as in not to mention their unpaid debts of several million.

by Sponsored content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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