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
Good one Max-1…love the Amish pilot! 🙂
In the case here, a flight attendant who converted to Islam (which does provide for exceptions…and I see them every day where I live ) after she took the job. Po cited an instance where he let integrity take the place of obstinate resistance or whining…he quit a job that didn’t comport with his faith. THAT I can respect. I’ve been a similar position, although not religious (a legal position) that required I do the same thing. I gave my word (similar to declaring one’s faith IMO) and lived up to it. Simple except for the perpetually aggrieved. Nobody owes you a dang thing and you’re alive only because the delivery guy didn’t choke you to death 😀
“Render unto Caesar that which is your Christ…”
Yea, that’s how it went.
Why did Kim Davis take an oath (so help me God?) to do her job only to do not her job? Why did Ms. Stanley take a job knowing that part of the job is to serve booze? Why would I apply for a job I can’t do? I wouldn’t and neither should these idiots. Last I checked, this country was not a theocracy. Davis should go work for Huckabee and Stanley should become a pilot. Problem solved.
davidm
I placed Kimmy D’s petition to the judge to not let her do her job on the other thread. It is laughable that she expects the taxpayers of her State to pay her salary of $80K to NOT do her job. But that’s what she expects.
Max-1 – your ignorance is showing. The County Clerk is responsible for a lot more than marriage licences.
In America the only religion allowed is really just the worship of Mammon.
All major religions proscribe sin and imply or recommend “legislated morality”
The American experiment is, as others have observed, the result of the Enlightenment and its coterie of freemason indifferentists, Protestant dissenters, atheists (Deists), Jewish lenders, and capitalist interests coming together against the Crown, who for all its flaws and Protestant schism was still “Defensor Fidelis” of the English speaking world.
Here’s where we end up. Oh and the money worshipping randroids think it’s great don’t they.
There is no opposition to money anymore in the West. It’s totally destroyed all organized resistance.
The incidents of Muslim nonconformity are just bumps in the road towards the eradication of all religion by the combined forces of capitalism and materialism.
davidm2575 … Ms. Davis missed one important option: Ms. Davis could have simply cited Kentucky state law. There was no need for accommodation of her religious beliefs to do so….and definitely not in an elective position. There’s another motive behind this I suspect (since she’s being obstinate)…and it is slippery slope as implied by the author’s (Jonathon Turley) words: There are a wide array of such religious practices that might come into play… As I’ve mentioned before, it is particularly significant where I live…we need no “good for the goose, good for the gander” here. 😀
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN0WeskWEAALXdq.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COBx2GEXAAAncdF.png
Good thing the famous saying isn’t:
“Give me religious liberty or give me death.”
Interesting back story:
“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.”
Too bad the crew couldn’t work it out on an ongoing basis. Failing that I tend to agree with Jonathan Turley in this case that “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.”
This is not that different than the Kim Davis case if an accommodation cannot be made that does not interrupt the employer’s ability to serve its customers. (I read somewhere she offered to let certificates be issued to homosexuals if not under her name. Not sure if that’s true or would’ve worked.) This is the same as the Muslim taxi drivers who refuse fares that involve transporting alcohol or dogs (especially service dogs). The bakers and florists are very different cases. So are the pharmacists who resist filling abortifacient prescriptions.
Having CAIR involved of course muddies the waters. They are to the Muslim Brotherhood what the ACLU has been from the beginning to the most extreme collectivists: activists busy applying Alinsky’s 4th Rule to advance the agenda of the fundamental transformation, in the one case to replace our Constitution with a collectivist one full of “positive rights;” in the other with Shariah. Those two opponents of the American Revolution have formed an unholy alliance. At some point we may have to decide whether Islamism, as practiced by some, is really a religion under the First Amendment if it refuses to acknowledge the same rights in the infidel. But this is not the time for that.
“RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.”)
The two salient points here are that:
1- she held the job before converting to Islam,
2- she brought issue to supervisor who offered a workable solution, one that worked for 3 years.
I do not think, also, that she would escape having to serve all drinks, solely alcohol. It would be like, hey Laura, seat 16 wants a beer, would you mind giving it to him?
I can’t believe I am saying this, but good point, Paul.
Did they serve up alcoholic beverages on the spacecraft used by the extraterrestrials who descended from the sky thousands of years ago to breed with our ancestors? There might be some ancient astronaut theoretical precedent. 😉
I think the way out of many of these religious accommodations is to have all employees sign an employment contract that, among other things, spells out the requirements of their duties for that position. Then if any employee repeatedly fails to abide by their contract they will be terminated. This then becomes a contractual obligation for employment and not governed by the whims of a court. A written contract is a written contract.
The primary part of a flight attendant’s duty is to ensure the safety and security of passengers. In most instances (thankfully) that doesn’t take up that much of their time. Food/drink service and cabin clean-up are the duties they spend most of their time on, and it’s also the “scut-work” part of the job. I can see where other crew members would object if she was being excused from the more menial duties while they had to do more of it. The article doesn’t mention whether or not she also refused to handle alcohol on clean-up, how would that be managed?
Also, different adherents to almost any religion practice that religion differently. Is alcohol available to passengers on Emirates airlines? It seems that a business is also going to be placed in the position of determining whether or not it’s a true religious objection, or just the way a specific individual chooses to practice it.
I have to wonder whether Islam really forbids selling alcohol, because every convenience store I’ve been in has Muslim clerks selling beer, wine and cigarettes. Whether Palestinian, Pakistani, Somali, or otherwise, they all do it. So perhaps this woman is practicing a more literal or extreme form of Islam, but that would suggest that she also could not serve non-halal sandwiches. I agree with others that the accommodation should be reasonable. If she becomes Amish next week, she can’t insist that the airplane be pulled by a team of oxen.
The service of alcohol is a significant revenue stream for the airlines and customers have come to expect that they can ask for a drink and receive one upon demand, so it seems an integral part of the job. What more accommodation will she demand? At 30,000 feet its a little difficult to open the door and bring in a replacement.
In all the hiring I have done over the years, one of the questions has always been “is there anything that would prevent you from being able to do this job as described?” If the answer was “yes”, we had to discuss what reasonable accommodation, if any, could be made. If the person was really not able to do the job they were not hired.
I do not generally consider religious beliefs to be a disability, and therefore expect people to figure out ahead of time whether or not they will be able to perform the job as described. If the job and job description changes (e.g. now you have to sign and approve marriage applications regardless of sexual orientation), the employee will have to decide whether or not to continue in the job. Unless they can prove that the job change was malicious, capricious, etc.
The flight attendant should get a different job, UNLESS the people she works with are willing and able to fill in for her. Similarly, pharmacists and pharmacy techs should fill ALL legal prescriptions presented to them OR have someone else on staff at all times who will substitute. Same with hospitals.
We do not have to let the blind person drive a bus. We do not have to allow the Amish kid on Rumspringa to work at the DMV and refuse to let people get licenses.
So all y’all who think every liberal would accommodate this person, please think again.
Notably, Kim Davis has stated that the following accommodations would allow her to keep her job:
* Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form.
* Distributing Kentucky marriage licenses at the state-level through an online or other
state-wide licensing scheme;
* Deputizing a neighboring county clerk (or some other person) to issue Kentucky
marriage licenses in Rowan County;
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Kentucky-marriage-15A250-application.pdf
Since the airlines have cut the crew sizes I can see their point. The first accommodation was reasonable. The complaint was unreasonable. The withdrawal of the accommodation is unreasonable.
No religion is simple enough to learn it all in one year. As you gain more knowledge you learn more of the grey areas. Or in her case black-and-white areas.
Serving alcohol is a very minor part of a flight attendant’s duties if she is serving in coach. The airline should easily be able to accommodate her religious conviction in this case by assigning her to coach and identifying attendants who will serve alcohol. If such is truly not possible (and I highly doubt this would be the case), the airline can adopt a no alcohol policy just like they do a no smoking policy.