A dentist is being sued for harassing staff by constantly playing Christian music
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Actually, if pressure were exerted and there was an appearance that advances, pay raises, etc were affected by attendance then it would absolutely be illegal. If a reasonable person "felt like they had to attend" it would be illegal.
Probably not, but apparently you can executive order anything into existence, and liberals won't care.
Fred said "if you're in an at will state...."
ALL STATES ARE AT WILL STATES.
When people say that, they are confusing "at will" with "right to work" because they've heard both terms and mixed up which one is relevant to the state in which one works in.
Moroon indeed.
Actually, it doesn't matter what state you are in. You can not hire or fire people based on religious beliefs.
That's a good point. However if you can get fired because you're "too good looking" and your boss can't resist his temptations. I assume they'd find a different world than religious differences for the termination.
It doesn't matter what their stated reason is. If you can convince a jury that the real reason was religion, you will win the case.
I just find it discouraging how many people are willing to abandon the civil rights act. And you KNOW their tune would be 100% different if the religion in question were Islam.
Agreed that if religion is the reason and a jury finds it to be the reason all 4 employees will win the case. Usually though it's a she says, she says situation and if the dentist has any documentation of issues (not related to religion) on any of these employees that will be justification for termination.
Completely agree that if the employees were forced to listen Islamic version of Michael W Smith and have Islamic prayer meetings the Christians would be singing a different tune. Not all of them obviously.
Another person willing to shrug off violations of civil rights that people fought and died to secure. There really are some despicable attitudes out there.
There are a lot of problems with the civil rights act. Sounds good in theory; problematic and abused in real life.
No violation of civil rights. The owner can produce whatever kind of atmosphere she wants; they can choose to work there or not.
Get over your liberal crybaby self.
Perhaps you are willing to ignore the 1964 civil rights act because you are ignorant of it. Equally sad. Still, you would be lying if you claim you wouldn't be seething with anger if an employee were pressured to attend Islam study meetings.
That's certainly one option. Are you saying it should be the only option?
If we had a full-employment economy where switching jobs was easy and unlikely to come at a cost (lower pay, having to move, etc.) then I'd probably agree. But that isn't the economy we have. Nor is it the economy most employers want, for obvious reasons.
As for this case, I'm less concerned about the style of music - some contemporary Christian music is pretty decent - but very concerned about the prayer meetings.
Back in the days when I managed stores, I let the employees pick the music. Only 3 rules:
--not too loud
--not offensive to customers
--no one was required to listen to anything they didn't like.
The third rule was sometimes a bone of contention. But my argument was that there's so much great music, no one should ever be forced to listen to something they really dislike.
--not too loud
--not offensive to customers
--no one was required to listen to anything they didn't like.
The third rule was sometimes a bone of contention. But my argument was that there's so much great music, no one should ever be forced to listen to something they really dislike.
They may have felt pressured, but they weren't pressured. Even though the employees said attendance was mandatory, there is no proof that it was.
BTW, I'd bet dollars to donuts that I understand the Civil rights act way more than you do.
Based on the story, and a little research on this situation, you cannot possibly say there was no pressure to attend. The lady and her, uh, consultant, are clearly batshit crazy and almost certainly pressured the employees.
And based on your previous post it seems equally clear that you would lose your proposed bet.
You know what's messed up? If the business owner or location manager is proselytizing at work, employees might sue for religious discrimination. But if a worker wants to proselytize at work, the owner/manager has to accommodate that religious need and only restrict such proselytizing if coworkers complain.
I don't know that to be true, but I'm certainly on board with the idea that religion should be private.
Should that be the only option? Yes. If you guys don't like the fact that switching jobs is harder, then you should probably be in favor of making it easier to start a company, instead of letting the corporations use the government to crush competition.
Freedom of religion necessarily entails the freedom to talk to others about your faith.
I don't think you have this right either. That freedom of religion is granted in relation to the government, not your employer. There is no duty for me to respect your right to unlimited free speech and especially if I happen to be paying you to represent me.
Not so fast, my friend. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to accommodate the religious beliefs of its employees, as long as the accommodation sought is reasonable, and not an undue hardship on the employer.
No such protection exists for business owners and managers.
I think you just answered your own question. Providing a free forum to accost customers and co workers with magical mystery talk not representative of the employer's brand is not reasonable.
I'm surprised you think so, I thought you claimed to know about civil rights in another thread.
You'd be surprised at what EEOC investigators think is "reasonable."
How about a grocery clerk who can't ring up pork products. Reasonable?
I see that as different from telling the shopper they are going to sin for buying the pork as was your first example. I question the veracity of your point that proselytizing at work is actually a protected right. But if I was the judge, I would side with the employer that the worker is unwilling to do the job they were hired to do and was a candidate for rightful termination. I would also question the basis of your question as I don't think there is a religion that says selling pork is wrong. Can you back up either of these assertions you are making?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17665989/...ifts-muslims-who-wont-ring-pork/#.Vp0EIJorLIU
Some employees may seek to display religious icons or messages at their work stations. Others may seek to proselytize by engaging in one-on-one discussions regarding religious beliefs, distributing literature, or using a particular religious phrase when greeting others. Still others may seek to engage in prayer at their work stations or to use other areas of the workplace for either individual or group prayer or study. In some of these situations, an employee might request accommodation in advance to permit such religious expression. In other situations, the employer will not learn of the situation or be called upon to consider any action unless it receives complaints about the religious expression from either other employees or customers.
Employers should not try to suppress all religious expression in the workplace. Title VII requires that employers accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief in engaging in religious expression in the workplace to the extent that they can do so without undue hardship on the operation of the business. In determining whether permitting an employee to pray, proselytize, or engage in other forms of religiously oriented expression in the workplace would pose an undue hardship, relevant considerations may include the effect such expression has on co-workers, customers, or business operations.
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html
Well, that's clear as mud.
I agree the matter is murky, but it's also not clear that an employer must accommodate proselytizing at work.
Your claim is that he's confusing "right to work" with "at will", which shows your ignorance on what those means.
What, in his post, could POSSIBLY have been confused with RIGHT TO WORK, you know, the thing involved with collective bargaining and unions and little/nothing to do with firing?
Hell, your own posts demonstrate that AT WILL was the correct term and consideration for the topic, pathetic that you work in HR.
You're so full of shit you actually believe your own horsecrap.
Fred was wrong. I corrected him. Then you come in and claim I said something I didn't say.
Go F--- yourself, I'm not playing your troll game today, you insufferable jack wagon.
