TOTALLY GEEKED!

Ohfour · Hooker

NOW tell me Christians aren't discriminated against?

Riding · Guru

Oh FFS....it is their JOB, no one is saying they have to drink what they are delivering.

It seems so many just search for reasons to be offended!

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

Um.

The two employees are Muslim, O4.

Ohfour · Hooker

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
Um.

The two employees are Muslim, O4.

Exactly. And they were vindicated because their religion doesn't allow alcohol. Yet a bakery that won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding is fined out out business.

Riding · Guru

I see that and that is why I commented they can do their job without drinking the product! what is they were delivering tampons or birth control, they wouldn't use it and might feel offended that people pick them over pads or NO sex...

ok maybe way off tangent, but I stand by it seems SO many anymore are just looking for reasons to be offended!

chef · Guru

I hope they win. Religious freedom needs to be upheld in this country.

Riding - It's not looking for a reason to be offended. It's wanting to have their religious freedom upheld. To my understanding, Muslims are to avoid alcohol per their religion.

Ohfour · Hooker

chef wrote:
I hope they win. Religious freedom needs to be upheld in this country.

Riding - It's not looking for a reason to be offended. It's wanting to have their religious freedom upheld. To my understanding, Muslims are to avoid alcohol per their religion.

They did win. And yet the same people that are calling for Kim Davis's head support them.

Hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds...

chef · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
chef wrote:
I hope they win. Religious freedom needs to be upheld in this country.

Riding - It's not looking for a reason to be offended. It's wanting to have their religious freedom upheld. To my understanding, Muslims are to avoid alcohol per their religion.
They did win. And yet the same people that are calling for Kim Davis's head support them.
Hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds...

Wow! Unsurprising given today's world but wow!

Hypocrisy indeed.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

I sometimes wonder why I stay here...

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
I sometimes wonder why I stay here...

flan

What's your take? Should the Muslims be forced to deliver beer if it's their job?

Lexxy · My dog name is Sasha, too!

I don't understand why they didn't assign them a different delivery. Of course the facts are very slim in this article so it might not have been that easy to change their assignment.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lexxy wrote:
I don't understand why they didn't assign them a different delivery. Of course the facts are very slim in this article so it might not have been that easy to change their assignment.

I agree. And yet, why not let another clerk issue a marriage license if Kim Davis felt it was infringing on her religious rights? They didn't HAVE to have her signature. What happens when she is sick or on vacation? Are no marriage licenses issued then>

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
chef wrote:
I hope they win. Religious freedom needs to be upheld in this country.

Riding - It's not looking for a reason to be offended. It's wanting to have their religious freedom upheld. To my understanding, Muslims are to avoid alcohol per their religion.
They did win. And yet the same people that are calling for Kim Davis's head support them.
Hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds...

No. The lawsuit was filed. They haven't won, yet.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
chef wrote:
I hope they win. Religious freedom needs to be upheld in this country.

Riding - It's not looking for a reason to be offended. It's wanting to have their religious freedom upheld. To my understanding, Muslims are to avoid alcohol per their religion.
They did win. And yet the same people that are calling for Kim Davis's head support them.
Hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds...
No. The lawsuit was filed. They haven't won, yet.

Sorry, I should have posted the results:

Jury Awards $240,000 to Muslim Truck Drivers In EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

Star Transport Fired Truckers for Refusing to Transport Alcohol, Federal Agency Charged

CHICAGO - A federal jury in Peoria, Ill., has awarded $240,000 to two Somalian-American Muslims who were fired from their jobs as truck drivers at Star Transport, an over-the-road trucking company, when they refused to transport alcohol because it violated their religious beliefs, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which brought the case. The trial started on Oct. 19, and the jury returned its verdict the next day after 45 minutes of deliberation.

Judge James E. Shadid, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, found in favor of EEOC after Star Transport admitted liability in March 2015. The resulting trial was to determine compensatory and punitive damages and back pay. The jury awarded Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale $20,000 each in compensatory damages and $100,000 each in punitive damages. Judge Shadid awarded each approximately $1,500 in back pay.

EEOC alleged that in 2009, Star Transport fired Mohamed and Bulshale after they were required to transport alcohol. Both men told Star Transport that they believed doing so would violate their religious beliefs under Islamic law.

EEOC also alleged that Star Transport could have but failed to accommodate the truckers' religious beliefs, as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Star Transport, Inc., No. 13-cv-1240) in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Peoria in May 2013.

"EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. "This is fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance."

The case was litigated by EEOC Trial Attorneys Aaron DeCamp and June Calhoun and Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason.

Calhoun said, "This is an awesome outcome. Star Transport failed to provide any discrimination training to its human resources personnel, which led to catastrophic results for these employees. They suffered real injustice that needed to be addressed. By this verdict, the jury remedied the injustice by sending clear messages to Star Transport and other employers that they will be held accountable for their unlawful employment practices. Moreover, they signaled to Mr. Mohamed and Mr. Bulshale that religious freedom is a right for all Americans."

Smason stated, "We are pleased that the jury recognized that these - and all - employees are entitled to observe and practice their faith, no matter what that might be."

Bulshale commented, "This case makes me proud to be American."

EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about EEOC is available on its website, www.eeoc.gov.

Riding · Guru

chef wrote:
I hope they win. Religious freedom needs to be upheld in this country.

Riding - It's not looking for a reason to be offended. It's wanting to have their religious freedom upheld. To my understanding, Muslims are to avoid alcohol per their religion.

most jobs give a job description, and if you saw that part of your job was to do something your religion disagreed with, that is no one's business. but taking a job then claiming discrimination for a duty your job requires???

that is what I was referring to

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

What it will come down to is what is a "reasonable accomodation". I mean, there are not any alcohol free routes to speak of - alcohol could be sent to any address at any time. So, in order to accomodate these people, the employer would have to hire someone to monitor alcohol shipments, and have someone special go out to make those deliveries in their stead - and that someone would not be on a normal route. So, how disruptive and costly is that to the employer and how reasonable is it to have to do that.

IMO - such an arrangement would go above and beyond "reasonable accomodation". If there is an office job available, they could potentially be transferred there, but a delivery person's job is to deliver - so if that is the only job available, then it comes down to what 12 people think is "reasonable" for an employer to do in that situation. And that answer will vary based on who gets on the jury.

huskerbb · Guru

chef wrote:
I hope they win. Religious freedom needs to be upheld in this country.

Riding - It's not looking for a reason to be offended. It's wanting to have their religious freedom upheld. To my understanding, Muslims are to avoid alcohol per their religion.

Then get a different job. It's like someone getting a job driving a taxi, and then says they can't be around other people.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
What it will come down to is what is a "reasonable accomodation". I mean, there are not any alcohol free routes to speak of - alcohol could be sent to any address at any time. So, in order to accomodate these people, the employer would have to hire someone to monitor alcohol shipments, and have someone special go out to make those deliveries in their stead - and that someone would not be on a normal route. So, how disruptive and costly is that to the employer and how reasonable is it to have to do that.

IMO - such an arrangement would go above and beyond "reasonable accomodation". If there is an office job available, they could potentially be transferred there, but a delivery person's job is to deliver - so if that is the only job available, then it comes down to what 12 people think is "reasonable" for an employer to do in that situation. And that answer will vary based on who gets on the jury.

12 idiots obviously....

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

This would be like applying for a weekend security guard position, and then claiming you can't work the Sabbath. They cannot accomodate that as that is the job you were hired for. Having to hire two people for the work of one is over and above reasonable accomodation.

cadiver · Senior Member

Lawyerlady wrote:
What it will come down to is what is a "reasonable accomodation". I mean, there are not any alcohol free routes to speak of - alcohol could be sent to any address at any time. So, in order to accomodate these people, the employer would have to hire someone to monitor alcohol shipments, and have someone special go out to make those deliveries in their stead - and that someone would not be on a normal route. So, how disruptive and costly is that to the employer and how reasonable is it to have to do that.

IMO - such an arrangement would go above and beyond "reasonable accomodation". If there is an office job available, they could potentially be transferred there, but a delivery person's job is to deliver - so if that is the only job available, then it comes down to what 12 people think is "reasonable" for an employer to do in that situation. And that answer will vary based on who gets on the jury.

It seem they transport petroleum. Not sure how alcohol plays into it.

Star Transportation, LLC specializes in the transportation and delivery of products such as gasoline, diesel, aviation gas, jet fuel, ethanol, and oil.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
What it will come down to is what is a "reasonable accomodation". I mean, there are not any alcohol free routes to speak of - alcohol could be sent to any address at any time. So, in order to accomodate these people, the employer would have to hire someone to monitor alcohol shipments, and have someone special go out to make those deliveries in their stead - and that someone would not be on a normal route. So, how disruptive and costly is that to the employer and how reasonable is it to have to do that.

IMO - such an arrangement would go above and beyond "reasonable accomodation". If there is an office job available, they could potentially be transferred there, but a delivery person's job is to deliver - so if that is the only job available, then it comes down to what 12 people think is "reasonable" for an employer to do in that situation. And that answer will vary based on who gets on the jury.
12 idiots obviously....

Depends on the verdict.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
What it will come down to is what is a "reasonable accomodation". I mean, there are not any alcohol free routes to speak of - alcohol could be sent to any address at any time. So, in order to accomodate these people, the employer would have to hire someone to monitor alcohol shipments, and have someone special go out to make those deliveries in their stead - and that someone would not be on a normal route. So, how disruptive and costly is that to the employer and how reasonable is it to have to do that.

IMO - such an arrangement would go above and beyond "reasonable accomodation". If there is an office job available, they could potentially be transferred there, but a delivery person's job is to deliver - so if that is the only job available, then it comes down to what 12 people think is "reasonable" for an employer to do in that situation. And that answer will vary based on who gets on the jury.
12 idiots obviously....
Depends on the verdict.

Did you not see my update? They won...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

cadiver wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
What it will come down to is what is a "reasonable accomodation". I mean, there are not any alcohol free routes to speak of - alcohol could be sent to any address at any time. So, in order to accomodate these people, the employer would have to hire someone to monitor alcohol shipments, and have someone special go out to make those deliveries in their stead - and that someone would not be on a normal route. So, how disruptive and costly is that to the employer and how reasonable is it to have to do that.

IMO - such an arrangement would go above and beyond "reasonable accomodation". If there is an office job available, they could potentially be transferred there, but a delivery person's job is to deliver - so if that is the only job available, then it comes down to what 12 people think is "reasonable" for an employer to do in that situation. And that answer will vary based on who gets on the jury.
It seem they transport petroleum. Not sure how alcohol plays into it.

Star Transportation, LLC specializes in the transportation and delivery of products such as gasoline, diesel, aviation gas, jet fuel, ethanol, and oil.

Excellent point, cadiver. Why are they being made to deliver alcohol?

Ohfour · Hooker

Star has received prestigious awards for superior and reliable transportation service from companies such as Quaker/Gatorade for the "Carrier of the Year".

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
What it will come down to is what is a "reasonable accomodation". I mean, there are not any alcohol free routes to speak of - alcohol could be sent to any address at any time. So, in order to accomodate these people, the employer would have to hire someone to monitor alcohol shipments, and have someone special go out to make those deliveries in their stead - and that someone would not be on a normal route. So, how disruptive and costly is that to the employer and how reasonable is it to have to do that.

IMO - such an arrangement would go above and beyond "reasonable accomodation". If there is an office job available, they could potentially be transferred there, but a delivery person's job is to deliver - so if that is the only job available, then it comes down to what 12 people think is "reasonable" for an employer to do in that situation. And that answer will vary based on who gets on the jury.
12 idiots obviously....
Depends on the verdict.
Did you not see my update? They won...

The devil is in the details.

the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, found in favor of EEOC after Star Transport admitted liability in March 2015.

Of course, if they got a job to deliver oil and gasoline and then were told they would have to deliver alcohol and were fired b/c they didn't, THAT is a problem, and they should have won.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

These cases are very fact specific. And the carrier admitted liability. We actually don't have enough facts to judge.

cadiver · Senior Member

cadiver wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
What it will come down to is what is a "reasonable accomodation". I mean, there are not any alcohol free routes to speak of - alcohol could be sent to any address at any time. So, in order to accomodate these people, the employer would have to hire someone to monitor alcohol shipments, and have someone special go out to make those deliveries in their stead - and that someone would not be on a normal route. So, how disruptive and costly is that to the employer and how reasonable is it to have to do that.

IMO - such an arrangement would go above and beyond "reasonable accomodation". If there is an office job available, they could potentially be transferred there, but a delivery person's job is to deliver - so if that is the only job available, then it comes down to what 12 people think is "reasonable" for an employer to do in that situation. And that answer will vary based on who gets on the jury.
It seem they transport petroleum. Not sure how alcohol plays into it.

Star Transportation, LLC specializes in the transportation and delivery of products such as gasoline, diesel, aviation gas, jet fuel, ethanol, and oil.

I may have the wrong company there is Star Transportation and Star Transportation LLC.

and I was thinking they had a problem with ethanol.

-- Edited by cadiver on Tuesday 27th of October 2015 05:03:02 PM

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

You were hired to drive truck. So drive truck. I find these cases silly.

WYSIWYG · Guru

I don't think they should have won. But, I didn't think the McDonald's hot coffee lady should have won either.

ed11563 · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
I don't think they should have won. But, I didn't think the McDonald's hot coffee lady should have won either.

Do you know the back story about the McDonald's coffee burned lady? Do you want to? Clearly it's not what you think.

huskerbb · Guru

ed11563 wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
I don't think they should have won. But, I didn't think the McDonald's hot coffee lady should have won either.
Do you know the back story about the McDonald's coffee burned lady? Do you want to? Clearly it's not what you think.

I know it. We've talked about it on here. It was frivolous.

ed11563 · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
I don't think they should have won. But, I didn't think the McDonald's hot coffee lady should have won either.
Do you know the back story about the McDonald's coffee burned lady? Do you want to? Clearly it's not what you think.

I know it. We've talked about it on here. It was frivolous.

No, not frivolous at all.

They were serving coffee at over 200 degrees, their own standard was 140.

They had had multiple incidents for people getting burned by their coffee, and didn't change their practice.

Your hands get scalded when the water temperature is 125 degrees.

In this case, the elderly lady suffered serious burns on her legs and needed plastic surgery.

She had been asking for them to pay the hospital bills, nothing else, they told her NO.

The jury decided that the only way to make them change their practice was to sock them in the wallet,

which is similar to the problem GM had with a defective tail light fixture that was shorting out and burning up Chevy's, and sometimes the people in them. The fix would have cost 50 cents per car, the bean counters decided that each death would cost the company about $10,000 , so it was cheaper to just let a few people burn to death.

Ford had a similar situation with Pintos burning people up because the gas tank was too vulnerable.

Sometimes it takes a $10 billion judgement to wake up the corporate executives.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

It was stupid.

Hot coffee should be hot.

And do you know how many people will complain about their coffee not being hot enough when they watch you catch it as it brews?

huskerbb · Guru

ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
I don't think they should have won. But, I didn't think the McDonald's hot coffee lady should have won either.
Do you know the back story about the McDonald's coffee burned lady? Do you want to? Clearly it's not what you think.

I know it. We've talked about it on here. It was frivolous.
No, not frivolous at all.
They were serving coffee at over 200 degrees, their own standard was 140.
They had had multiple incidents for people getting burned by their coffee, and didn't change their practice.
Your hands get scalded when the water temperature is 125 degrees.
In this case, the elderly lady suffered serious burns on her legs and needed plastic surgery.
She had been asking for them to pay the hospital bills, nothing else, they told her NO.

The jury decided that the only way to make them change their practice was to sock them in the wallet,
which is similar to the problem GM had with a defective tail light fixture that was shorting out and burning up Chevy's, and sometimes the people in them. The fix would have cost 50 cents per car, the bean counters decided that each death would cost the company about $10,000 , so it was cheaper to just let a few people burn to death.
Ford had a similar situation with Pintos burning people up because the gas tank was too vulnerable.

Sometimes it takes a $10 billion judgement to wake up the corporate executives.

Hot coffee is supposed to be hot. 140 degrees is only lukewarm tap water.

Dont spill it. No ones fault but her own.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Yep.

Holding temp is 140 as determined by the health inspector.

Anything hot has to reach 165 before being served.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Do you know the back story about the McDonald's coffee burned lady? Do you want to? Clearly it's not what you think.
- ed11563

_____________________________

Yes, ed11563, I do know the back story. And knowing the back story doesn't change anything. She shouldn't have won.

Lindley · Guru

After reading her story I do feel sorry for her. I don't think she should have been rewarded that much money though.

chef · Guru

If it's the same incident, the woman stuck the coffee between her legs and opened the lid causing the coffee to spill on her. I don't think she was elderly though so not sure if it's the same story.

FNW · Guru

McD's coffee used to be too hot, IMO. I never had the time to let it cool before drinking it, so I stopped ordering it. But the award was way too high. It would seem that she was negligent and assumed the risk by putting scalding coffee between her legs.

I do see the hypocrisy in this award as well.

chef · Guru

FNW wrote:
McD's coffee used to be too hot, IMO. I never had the time to let it cool before drinking it, so I stopped ordering it. But the award was way too high. It would seem that she was negligent and assumed the risk by putting scalding coffee between her legs.

I do see the hypocrisy in this award as well.

No kidding.

It would never occur to me to put a hot liquid between my legs. It just wouldn't.

TOTALLY GEEKED!

EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination

Jury Awards $240,000 to Muslim Truck Drivers In EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit