In a bid to get her job back, Charee Stanley filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday for the revocation of a reasonable religious accommodation.
She wants to do her job without serving alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith -- just as she was doing before her suspension, her lawyer said.
"What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely," said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
More
19 comments:
That skues with the Christian lady who cannot issue gay marriage licenses.
No different than Kentucky issue. You cannot impose your personal religious views into your job. Jeesh....how stupid are these people.
She had to know that serving alcohol was part of the job before she applied. Don't apply for a job, refuse to do that job, and then cry discrimination. It's like saying I want to work at McDonalds but I don't want to serve cheeseburgers. There are plenty of others jobs where you can go practice your "religious restrictions", and then we won't have to trust you on a plane with all of us infidels either.
Fly back to a muslim country and practice your hanus religion there.
She doesn't have to choose.
She is Muslim, the passengers requesting alcohol are not...at least not practicing Muslims.
There are lots of liquor stores owned and operated by Muslims. The infidels are going to hell anyway, so why should they care?
And why would she even apply for a job that required serving alcohol?
Who hired that pig! If I was on that flight I would request a BLT.
9:49
There is a difference. The when the woman in Kentucky took the job they didn't allow gay marriage. She was elected to a position that didn't interfere with her faith. The woman took a position that knew would interfere with it and wants special treatment.
Serving beverages to passengers is a BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualification) for a flight attendant. Without knowing what planes they fly it is possible she may be assigned to planes where she is the only FA. In the event the planes are larger and have 2 or more FAs, her fellow crewmember will shoulder the burden of all alcohol transactions, which can be a large percentage of thirsty passengers. It varies widely from flight to flight. In addition the FAs have to organize their catering carts and rearrage the inventory.
Her employer made a big mistake in hiring her and permitting her to fly, given her determination to avoid coming into contact with alcohol. In the event they serve meals or snacks, would she likewise decline to serve those with ingredients she objects to?
As an accomodation, she could be reassigned to a ground based customer service position which would permit her to stay employed while making contact with ingredients she objects to much less likely.
Or, with her in-flight experience she could be hired by airlines based in the MidEast.
Same as KY, she can get another job. No accommodation.
If you can't touch meat you don't get a job as a butcher, dummy.
First of all I wouldn't want her serving me anything and secondly she knew this was part of the job. If she doesn't want to serve alcohol find an airline that doesn't serve it and go work there. They all want to come to the United States for the freedom then they get here and want to this kind of crap. You left an unfree country for pete sake - learn the American way or go home.
Where are all the folks yelling about religious persecution that are up in arms over the anti-civil rights clerk in Kentucky?
Don't see them chirpping in here because it doesn't fit their narrative of persecution. I think that it speaks volumes about the content of their character, and the intentions of their arguments.
5:24 Not the same as Kentucky. The SCOTUS made a new law (which is not constitutional, read the dissent of the other four justices) against God's law after the Kim Clark had been elected to her job. She is standing or her freedom of religion rights guaranteed by the same constitution. The Muslim lady knew the rules of her job going in, nothing had changed concerning that.
This is how Muslims test the American court system then the flood gates open she wouldnt even be able to work in her own country so she leaves her country and comes to the Usa and starts her opprestion on the American people.???
Another example of this country going to hell in a handbasket. Get rid of her butt
If one was allergic to animals they should not apply at a kennel for a job
Anonymous said...
Where are all the folks yelling about religious persecution that are up in arms over the anti-civil rights clerk in Kentucky?
Don't see them chirpping in here because it doesn't fit their narrative of persecution. I think that it speaks volumes about the content of their character, and the intentions of their arguments.
September 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
You liberal moron. Her religion wants to slice your head off. You morons keep defending these muslims and I pray that they take you first.
8:56
See my comment at 10:50pm. There is the difference!
This is just another scam that was planned this way to result in a big fat MONEY settlement for her AND lawyers.
Post a Comment