There is an interesting counterpart to the Kim Davis debate over the right of people to follow their religious beliefs in the denial of services to others. A Muslim flight attendant Charee Stanley says she was suspended by ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith. While there are clearly significant differences between a public official using her office to impose their religious views and an employee demanding accommodation in the work place, the controversy shows the increasing conflicts occurring between religious principles and public accommodation. We have seen this conflict most vividly in the controversy over Christian and Muslim bakeries and photographers declining to service same-sex weddings. We have previously discussed (here and here and here) the growing conflicts over businesses that decline to accommodate same-sex weddings and events in a clash between anti-discrimination and free speech (and free exercise) values. Despite my support for gay rights and same-sex marriage, I have previously written that anti-discrimination laws are threatening the free exercise of religion. Yet, these cases also raise concerns over rising burdens on both customers and businesses in having to deal with a myriad of different religious objections as in the ExpressJet case.
Stanley refused to serve alcohol on flights and was suspended since that is a central part of the duties of flight attendants. She has filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday for the revocation of a reasonable religious accommodation.
Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, stated “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.” However, the airline is likely to argue that this is like someone applying for a bartending job or a waitress job in a bar/restaurant and then refusing to serve drinks. The counterargument might be found in the common statement of pilots or flight stewards that their primary job is to guarantee the safety of the passengers. Thus, they could argue that the the food and drinks are optional or collateral elements to their positions.
A similar controversy has erupted in cities like Minneapolis where Muslim taxi drivers refused to take anyone carrying alcohol — a common practice at the airport with people bringing back wines or liquors. They lost in court. One could easily view Stanley’s case in the same light.
Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam and this year Masri said she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it.
Masri said that a supervisor said that she could work out an arrangement with other flight attendants to have them handle the alcohol and “this arrangement has worked beautifully and without incident.” However, one flight attendant clearly disagreed and filed a complaint that she was not fulfilling her duties and requiring other flight attendants to take up the slack. The complaint also reportedly objected to her having a book “foreign writings” and wearing a headdress. The airline ruled against Stanley and said that it would no longer accommodate her religious objections. She was placed on unpaid leave and told that she would be fired in 12 months if she did not comply with standard rules.
We recently discussed another case involving Abercrombie in which an employee insisted on wearing a headscarf despite the rule of the store for employees to fit a certain “Abercrombie look.” The case raised the right of businesses to maintain certain styles and appearances among employees. The Supreme Court ruled against the company after the !0th Circuit ruled for the company. The case specifically turned on the level of knowledge and disclosure required to trigger the protections under federal law for religious accommodation. However, many businesses are unclear now as to how far they have to accommodate such practices. Would Abercrombie be required to allow a full burka or, alternatively, ultra-orthodox clothing for a Jewish employee.
The question is how much a burden a company is expected to bear. There are a host of businesses that seek to supply a common level of services and common look among employees. Should the airline or its customers have to accommodate employees who object to handling alcohol or particular types of foods? We discussed a British stores that already allows Muslim employees to refuse to ring up purchases of pork or alcohol .
There are a wide array of such religious practices that might come into play in such circumstances. The result could be delays in service or an unacceptable burden on flight attendants who are willing to perform all of the functions of their position. Likewise, what if a majority of flight attendants then claim a no alcohol accommodation. An airline would likely be sued if it only allowed one practicing Muslim to work on any given crew. It would also be on difficult ground in demanding to know the religion and religious practices of applicants. The airline would seem on strong ground to claim that the need to serve alcohol is a bona fide occupational qualification, even if it is optional on flights. It is a standard part of service for most flights in this market.
What do you think?
Source: CNN
When I first moved to the US, the first job I got was as a busboy in a restaurant bar, and the first duty was to move cases of alcohol into the bar.
Although that is allowable in Islam in many circumstances, I felt uncomfortable about it and asked the boss for another assignment. When he said there was none, I quit.
Now this case is different, and I do not think it is similar to the cabby refusing to carry passengers with alcohol in his cab. While that is to discriminate against a certain group of people, in this case, serving alcohol is not the primary purpose of her position, rather, it is an accessory to the whole of attending to passengers.
The issue is that once we bring religion into it, people react to it in ways that are more emotional than when the same accommodations are made for other reasons. Every job makes accommodations for age, youth, experience, seniority, health, gender, parental status, and many other factors we accept as natural and conditioning circumstances of employment. If the woman had a hand problem that prevented here from opening bottles or cans for example, accommodations would be made readily to help her.
Let us remove religion as cause and see how we feel about the issue.
Additionally, she obviously took steps to remediate the problem, the proper way, through proper channels, securing an understanding that worked until it no longer did, and it no longer did because one person took offense to it.
I think there must a threshold, a percentage of duties beyond which accommodation is no longer warranted. A bartender cannot demand to be excused from serving drinks, nor can a butcher demand to be excused from handling meat. However, a vergetarian working at wholefoods might be excused from serving meat.
“Sorry Charlie, but the guy in 33A wants a beer.”
“Thats ok Loretta, the gal in 1A wants a pretzel and I dont do pretzels. You do the pretzel and I will do the beer.”
“Oh, and Charlie, the guy at 12B is a jew because he has on a beanie and I can not wait on beanies.”
Yeah. Got ya. But I cant either. Maybe the pilot will wait on the jew.”
How does someone “learn” what her faith prohibits a year after proclaiming that faith?
Apparently this flight attendant’s application process did not inform her of the extent of her duties including serving alcohol to drunken atheist perverts and their bourgeois paramours or spouses in First Class, which it should have. If it had, and she was fully informed and then agreed to it, it seems to me she would have waived her right to a reasonable accommodation with regard to serving alcohol.
If a criminal defendant can waive his or her right to counsel, to confront witnesses, and to a speedy trial by impartial jury under the 6th Amendment, a flight attendant surely must be able to waive her right to refuse to serve alcohol under the 1st.
Job requirement should not be changed because of religion from any of the parties. A few years ago in Saudi Arabia there was a fire in girls school which made it necessary to physically carry out students. The religious police would not allow that and large numbers died. Just a few weeks ago in Dubai, a girl about 19, was drowned because her father would not allow her to be saved by a male life guard. And now we have this woman wanting to change her job requirement. This is unfair to the employer and can cause extra expenses can affect the bottom line and are unfair to the others that have to shoulder her responsibility. It is also not good customer service or making good business sense. People should choose jobs that fit them physically, intellectually, psychologically, religiously or whatever factor that is important to them.
When Kim Davis refused to follow the order she was promptly sent to prison. I think the airline should stick to the rules that applies to all employees and there should be no compromise. Let us see what liberals have to say about it. Well, I can forsee their stand and that will be against the airline.
Would Charee have a problem serving kosher meals to Jewish people?
El Al airline food and beverages: Specialties are created by EL AL’s Head Chef Moshe Segev, one of Israel’s leading chefs. All of the food and beverages on our flights are kosher.
Nick
The judge is in charge. He ordered her to place her personal religious convictions in second place to the job she was hired to do and she refused. She was in contempt of court. Would you prefer that our society which has evolved over centuries to the most even handed and universal of all mankind place anyone and everyone at the mercy of religious fanatics. What she did is hold the gay couples seeking marriage licenses in contempt of her and her interpretation of a specific religion. She over rode the power of her government position to suit her own beliefs, beliefs that are in this case peculiar to her, only. The reality of the situation is a single insignificant person empowering herself through this last vestige of personal interpretation available.
Believe what you want to believe. The Constitution protects your right to believe. Over and above that, it protects all of us from the excesses of fanatics, religious or otherwise.
Personally, I do not hate religion. I detest those that use it to replace the ‘god given’ abilities to reason and coexist. I like the architecture, pomp, music, etc. I have, in the past, created a major stained glass window for a church. They knew I did not share their beliefs but they knew I respected the same things they respect, the rights granted to us by us.
Agreed. One does not have to be anti-religious to believe you do not have a enforce your religion on others. But, it helps! In this case I don’t think the airline should be required to accommodate. But, there are subtle, and not so subtle indicators of the people who are anti-religious. The irony here is I don’t like organized religion. I’ve said that many times. But, I respect those who do abide to organized religion. The tables were turned by the anti religious bigot Gaylor family in my hometown of Madison. They founded Freedom FROM Religion. The proper word is “of” NOT “from.”
Probably everyone has some aspects of their job which they find unpalatable. Should they all refuse to do that part of their job and claim it to be a religious belief? Should Chelsea Manning have claimed that her religion forbade hiding government corruption? Should the courts decide these issues based on the character of the objection, for example, disclosing corruption is good/bad, reducing alcohol consumption is good/bad, same-sex couples getting married is good/bad?
One doesn’t have to be anti religious to object to an individual trying to enforce their religious beliefs on other people. Once a person’s religious beliefs result in a privilege, that is, to avoid performing one or another function of ones job, it raises the issue of why that individual should receive that benefit based on religion while others have to pick up the slack. It could also put passengers at risk. Privileges based on religious beliefs set up a bad precedent. For example a male flight attendant whose religion forbids him to interact with females. Should he be accommodated by rearranging the cabin to segregate male from female passengers or should he be permitted to limit his service to males.
If one is going to interact with the public one must be ready to do so or forego such employment.
Bob Stone mentioned this case yesterday in one of his comments. The more I learn and read, the more the scale tilts toward very conservative Judge Bunning being Machiavellian in imprisoning Davis for civil contempt, making her a martyr. I still think it’s more likely Bunning was just being a typical monarch Federal Judge, “I’m in charge here.” I say it’s 70% more likely. But, the Machiavellian possibility has moved up to 30%.
Too early in the morning…..”for their own sake” not “for there own sake.”
Nick,
Which posts are you referring to? There are three ahead of you, none of which are anti-religious.
Wasn’t the complaint that the workload for the coworkers was increased due to her accommodation? Is it reasonable to unduly burden the co workers to accommodate the employees religious beliefs? Complaints about her headdress and her carrying her holy book should have no bearing and do smack of bigotry, but isn’t the issue that the accommodation unduly burdened the coworkers making it unreasonable to continue to grant it to her?
God save us from new converts and reformed reformers.
http://en.islamtoday.net/node/688
According to this site, there is a difference between things that are prohibited for there own sake, like drinking alcohol, and things that are a means to wrongdoing. “Prohibitions regarding the means to wrongdoing will be lifted for a valid need (hâjah).”
The flight attendant’s objections to serving alcohol are completely unnecessary. However, in this case, it looks like the main problem was caused by a pi$$y coworker who doesn’t like Muslims.
Why is it that the posts that involve aspects of religion attract the most anti-religious commenters?
At the moment we’re only getting the plaintiff’s version of events. The airline refuses to comment, so all we can say is under that disclaimer.
The supervisor suggested the accommodation, which weighs in in the side of whether it was reasonable.
On the other side is the later breakdown of the accommodation. But this is complicated by the reported complaints of the other steward, which suggest a hostile working environment for practising Muslims. Wearing a headdress and taking a book on flights shouldn’t be a cause for legitimate complaint, and it’s the responsibility of the employer to ensure that all employees are aware that such unconscionable hostility is not acceptable in the workplace.
This is exactly where we are going…employees will now be able to refuse to do their jobs based on relgious objections…..likely it will only be some who are fired.
If one cannot interact with the public and perform the duties of a job one should not apply for said job. Full stop. I don’t care what you believe but if that means you won’t perform your job, you don’t belong there.
The accommodation should be reasonable. If the person cannot perform the essential duties of the job and it affects the running of the business negatively it would seem to be unreasonable to accommodate her due to her religious beliefs. Accommodations in different employment scenarios are often denied legally because they are unreasonable. A person’s religious beliefs cannot run roughshod over the rest of society.