Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss Religious Waitress Fired For Refusing To Wear Jeans at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by foundit66 This thread is kind of amusing in the recognition of how the right often pretend they ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 10-05-2017, 10:19 AM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Between Oz and a hard place
Posts: 10,425
Thanks: 8,111
Thanked 6,646 Times in 4,303 Posts
Default Re: Religious Waitress Fired For Refusing To Wear Jeans

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
This thread is kind of amusing in the recognition of how the right often pretend they are the champions for religious freedom, yet here they side with the employer.
And the part where it gets amusing is recognizing that the right has no consistent standard.

The standard used by the courts and the left here is reasonable accommodations
The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.
Denim Jeans => Denim Skirt would be an arguably "reasonable accommodation".

What's not a reasonable accommodation?
Kim Davis trying to claim "religious objection" to doing her job. Where the right sided with Kim Davis.
While the reasonable accommodation would be to permit the denim skirt, and pretty much everybody who posted felt that the employer should have specified the dress code during the interview, I keep coming up with pretty much this same statement from every site I've seen this case referenced:

Quote:
In 2015, Kaetoya Watkins applied to be a server at a Georgia Blue restaurant in Flowood, Miss., a suburb of Jackson, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. She was offered the position and scheduled to begin work before learning that Georgia Blue had a dress code requiring employees to wear blue jeans, the lawsuit said.
Ms. Watkins never mentioned her dress requirements based on her religious beliefs, prior to being hired. If one is interviewing for a position, it is usually quite obvious what the servers (or anyone else) who works at an establishment, is wearing. While the employer did not specify their requirements prior to hiring, neither did Ms. Watkins.

IMO, Ms. Watkins is just as culpable as the employer, and I don't believe the non-hire was because of her religion, it was because of the dress code, which are actually two different subjects.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GottaGo For This Useful Post:
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2017, 04:35 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,508
Thanks: 9,696
Thanked 14,755 Times in 8,920 Posts
Post Re: Religious Waitress Fired For Refusing To Wear Jeans

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
While the reasonable accommodation would be to permit the denim skirt, and pretty much everybody who posted felt that the employer should have specified the dress code during the interview, I keep coming up with pretty much this same statement from every site I've seen this case referenced:

Ms. Watkins never mentioned her dress requirements based on her religious beliefs, prior to being hired.
Do you get how completely meaningless this is?
This timing difference provides no difference to the situation.

If the employer is required to provide "reasonable accommodation", then the employer is required to provide "reasonable accommodation".
It doesn't matter if it comes up before or after. The employee could conceivably go to work one week, change religions, and then be protected for this under the law.
Do you get that?

Discussing religion is a no-no for both employer and employee.
For the employer, it's essentially illegal.
11 Illegal Interview Questions - Business Insider

For employees, you're setting yourself up for the possibility of being discriminated against without any clue to the real reason for rejection. The employer could think "No. Not going to do it" and reject her for religion, then lie and say it was for some other reason. The employee gets ILLEGALLY discriminated against, but without any clue that she was illegally discriminated against.
By discussing it after hiring, the employer has to be honest about what's going on.

But most importantly, the timing does not matter with regards to the legal protection.
She is still protected.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
If one is interviewing for a position, it is usually quite obvious what the servers (or anyone else) who works at an establishment, is wearing. While the employer did not specify their requirements prior to hiring, neither did Ms. Watkins.
Does that change anything under the law?



Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
IMO, Ms. Watkins is just as culpable as the employer, and I don't believe the non-hire was because of her religion, it was because of the dress code, which are actually two different subjects.
Ms. Watkins is just as culpable????
The employer could be violating employee Civil Rights Act legislation. The only way they wouldn't be is if they can persuade the courts that denim skirts instead of denim jeans is not a "reasonable accommodation".

How is Ms. Watkins "just as culpable" to the employer performing an illegal act?
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 10-09-2017 at 09:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 10-16-2017, 03:43 PM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,346
Thanks: 2,209
Thanked 3,324 Times in 2,412 Posts
Default Re: Religious Waitress Fired For Refusing To Wear Jeans

Quote:
Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
All I really care about is if you can do the job
What if one of your employees showed up to work wearing a "Who Farted" t-shirt?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
fired, for, jeans, refusing, religious, waitress, wear

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0