Christian fired for wearing a skirt awarded $25,000

[Baltimatt]

Relgious freedom case

A Pentecostal woman in Texas has won a $25,000 settlement against fast-food chain Burger King after she was fired for wearing a skirt to work in August 2010 and refusing to change her clothes. "For 2013 and 2014, defendant agrees to conduct an annual training session for all district managers and general managers for defendant's Texas Burger King restaurants, advising them of the requirements and prohibitions of the federal anti-discrimination laws with a special emphasis on religious discrimination," the nine-page consent decree shared by Courthouse News Service reads. "The training will also inform these individuals of the necessity of attempting to accommodate the religious beliefs of applicants and employees."

Burger King will now have to pay $25,000 to Ashanti McShan, who was 17 years of age when she was let go by the fast food restaurant for wanting to wear a skirt to work for religious reasons. Five thousand dollars of that money will be paid for back wages, while another $20,000 will be paid for mental anguish and non-wage damages.

[ivanbalt]

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which filed the federal complaint on behalf of McShan, noted that some Pentecostal Christians believe the Bible teaches that women should wear only skirts and dresses, which goes against Burger King's dress code.

Going to have to disagree with this one. A uniform is a uniform. Don't like, find another job.

Was the secret 11th commandment, "Thall shall not wear pants if thall is a lady"?

[Baltimatt]

The $20,000 mental anguish seems high, but that's what it was.

My, my, my, anti-discrimination laws protecting Christians. Who would have thought that reading this board?

[Baltimatt]

Ivan--

Deuteronomy 22:5

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

(New International Version)

[regularguy]

Can a fundamentalist waiter at Red Lobster sue if ordered to serve "detestable" shellfish?

Leviticus 11:9-12

“These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.

(Link.)

[Baltimatt]

Regularguy--

Fundamentalist Christians generally don't abide by the Old Testament dietary laws (with scriptural justification), but Orthodox Jews do.

However, in this case, the girl (now woman) says she was told she could wear skirts when hired, then when she showed up for work was told she couldn't.

[ivanbalt]

Ivan--

Deuteronomy 22:5



(New International Version)

Ok. Did men even wear pants back in the Old Testament days?

[Baltimatt]

Ivan==

How about a kilt?

The kilt is a knee-length garment with pleats at the rear, originating in the traditional dress of men and boys in the Scottish Highlands of the 16th century.

Yes, there are a lot of cultural definitions that are rather varied across different societies.

[regularguy]

Regularguy--

Fundamentalist Christians generally don't abide by the Old Testament dietary laws (with scriptural justification), but Orthodox Jews do.

I never could understand the logic of fundamentalist Christians believing that the Old Testament is the literal "word of God", yet skating around some of the nonsensical laws that The Almighty set out in Leviticus. When did Jesus say it's now ok to eat lobster and pork?

[Baltimatt]

RG--

Don't have time now, but Jesus is quoted in the Bible as saying it's not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what comes out of his mouth.

Also, Peter had a vision that all kinds of animals were lowered from heaven with the instruction to kill and eat. When Peter said he had never eaten any unclean thing, God told him what God declares clean is clean, or something like that.

[Calamari]

Some people really know how to milk the legal system.

[LarryN]

Also, Peter had a vision that all kinds of animals were lowered from heaven with the instruction to kill and eat.

So the old joke, "If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat", actually has a Biblical foundation?

[sigmalady]

Going to have to disagree with this one. A uniform is a uniform. Don't like, find another job.

I agree with you. This, however is the problem:

"The defendant hired Ms. McShan as a cashier," the complaint states. "At the time of her interview for the job, Ms. McShan asked to wear a skirt instead of uniform pants as a religious accommodation. Defendant assured her that she could wear a skirt to work."

on the positive side, this is proof that the laws protect Christians, contrary to what has been stated on this board previously. And no, I don't have a link for that

[Fang]

I agree with you. This, however is the problem:




on the positive side, this is proof that the laws protect Christians, contrary to what has been stated on this board previously. And no, I don't have a link for that

Thanks. I thought her case was bogus until you posted that quote. She totally had a case.

[Baltimatt]

http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=8786

The suit accuses Abercrombie of violating [Hani] Khan’s civil rights by discriminating against her on the basis of religion when she worked at the San Francisco Bay area store Hollister Co., which is owned by Abercrombie. Khan alleges that when she was hired in October 2009, she was told she could wear her head scarf, or hijab, as long as it matched the company’s official colors.

But four months later, a pair of managers asked her to remove the hijab while working, and when Khan refused she was suspended and then terminated, according to the lawsuit.

This was from 2011, but I haven't found anything about whether it was settled or adjudicated.

[bullmikey]

What if you worship Bal the Unhandsome and Bal the Unhandsome says you should spit in the secret sauce and pee in the coffee? Just wondering.

[Baltimatt]

Bullmikey--

I doubt that would be considered a reasonable accommodation for religion, while skirts or a hijab would be considered reasonable.

[bullmikey]

Bullmikey--

I doubt that would be considered a reasonable accommodation for religion, while skirts or a hijab would be considered reasonable.

I don't know. The followers of Bal the Unhandsome might see it as entirely reasonable, considering the old boy wasn't demanding burnt offerings of anyone's first born or anything as severe as that. Sometimes reasonable varies with the eyes of the beholder.

However, fair is fair, and if they told the lady up front that she could work in a skirt than they should have kept their word. Though I've always wondered why God prefers women in skirts and not pants suits. I mean what about in the good old days when the Lord of Hosts (and skirts, apparently) went nose to nose with Abraham and Moses? Everybody just wore whatever back then, didn’t they? I mean if you wrapped yourself in an old sheet you were screaming elegance. But that didn’t seem to bother God too much back in the day.

Ah well…at least Bal the Unhandsome hasn’t changed much in the last 10,000 years.