Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Woman Fired For Eating 'Unclean' Meat

Religion Islam Unclean Meat Workplace

  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#1 Kimmer

Kimmer
  • Islander
  • 6,388 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 01:03 PM

Is this religious discrimination or not?

Quote

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A Central Florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises, according to Local 6 News.

Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties, Local 6 News reported.

However, 10 months after being hired by Rising Star, religious differences led to her termination.

Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean.," Local 6 News reported.  She was then fire for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report.       

"Are you telling me they fired you because you had something with ham on it?" Local 6 News reporter Mike Holfeld asked.

"Yes," Morales said. 

Holfeld asked, "A pizza and a BLT sandwich?"

" Yes," Morales said.

Local 6 News obtained the termination letter that states she was fired for refusing to comply with company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises.

However, by the company's own admission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that policy is not written, Local 6 News reported. ©Copyright 2004 by Internet Broadcasting Systems and Local6.com.

Read the rest of the article here:
http://www.local6.co...199/detail.html

#2 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 01:17 PM

Hmm. Well, I was going to say yes, right off the bat, but I read the article a bit more closely and there's an interesting thing happening here...  

The article is clearly biased against the Muslim establishment, but the Muslim establishment is attempting to create an ecumenical environment - that is, one that is friendly to anyone from any faith.  That means, in their view, that some practices have to be restricted because they would infringe somewhat on others, while the reverse infringement of not having to be restricted does not infringe as much.  It's an interesting position, and I think they are going to fail, particularly because the woman's practice of eating pork is not actually affecting anyone else, but I see what they are trying to do.  There is something fundamentally different about an ecumenical environment, as opposed to a religion-neutral environment... and this case is highlighting the attempt of a business to create the former.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#3 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,633 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 02:18 PM

The main issue is that the policy is not written down as a condition of employment.  The employers need to be clear about this.  Otherwise I see no heinous violation of rights.

If Ms. Morales' Catholicism required her to eat pork for lunch, then her rights would be violated.  If the employers required her to eat meat during Lent, that would be a problem. But none of those things is happening.

She's simply being asked not to engage in behavior that her employers are prohibiting.  It doesn't seem to me any different from a policy that forbids smoking in the lunchroom, or the consumption of alcohol while on duty.  It's only because the prohibition stems from the employers' religioius beliefs that this hassle is being made.

I can guarantee that if someone brought a BLT into the kitchen of a Kosher restaurant, they'd be fired, because they've contaminated the premises.  This is less clear cut,  but it's part of the same continuum.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#4 Shoshana

Shoshana
  • Islander
  • 4,033 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 02:26 PM

^ I was going to reply... but Cardie said what I was gonna! So... what Cardie said...

#5 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 02:28 PM

I used to work for a Jewish guy.  So while everyone else had an office Christmas tree, we didn't.  Would I have liked one?  Sure.  And when I open my own office I'll have one.  

Lil
Posted Image

#6 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 03:09 PM

What Lil said.  :cool: But then, I'm one of those people who thinks private business should be allowed to operate as free from government interference as possible.

That said, I find their definition of ecumenical rather . . . limited.  :suspect:

Edited by Drew, 04 August 2004 - 03:10 PM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#7 Shoshana

Shoshana
  • Islander
  • 4,033 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 03:24 PM

btw... as far as Christmas trees go - I worked for a store that had multiple Christmas trees - very elaborately decorated by employees working off the clock. It wasn't exactly volunteer but when I told them I wasn't going to decorate and why, they grumbled but they let me out of decorating.

If they'd fired me for not decorating the tree - that would have been religious descrimination.

#8 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 03:42 PM

Drew, on Aug 4 2004, 04:07 PM, said:

That said, I find their definition of ecumenical rather . . . limited.  :suspect:
How so?

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#9 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 03:46 PM

Handmaiden07, on Aug 4 2004, 03:40 PM, said:

Drew, on Aug 4 2004, 04:07 PM, said:

That said, I find their definition of ecumenical rather . . . limited.  :suspect:
How so?
Because they're trying to create an "ecumenical environment" while at the same time imposing restrictions that suggest the opposite.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#10 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 04:13 PM

I saw it differently.  I saw them creating an environment that was safe for all.  Whereas muslims have a prohibition against pork, Christians do not have an injunction FOR pork...

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#11 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 04:15 PM

Drew, on Aug 4 2004, 01:07 PM, said:

What Lil said.  :cool:
  :eek4:  :eek4:  :eek4:  :eek4:  :eek4:  :eek4:  :eek4:

:hehe:  :love:  :hehe:

:angel:

Lil
Posted Image

#12 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 04:15 PM

never mind, that was confrontational and rude

Edited by Cyberhippie, 04 August 2004 - 04:15 PM.


#13 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 04:21 PM

^  eh?

You okay CH?

Oh and btw...don't you owe me two Firefly reviews????   :wideeyed:

:love:

Lil
Posted Image

#14 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 04:25 PM

Handmaiden07, on Aug 4 2004, 02:11 PM, said:

I saw it differently.  I saw them creating an environment that was safe for all.  Whereas muslims have a prohibition against pork, Christians do not have an injunction FOR pork...
But how does the Muslim prohibition against pork apply to those around them?

I don't care what this office does-- they own their company, and I hope the government will recognize that-- but I'm not sure I understand the logic.  

<I'd also like to see the complete list of their rules. That would be difficult, though, as they're apparently not written down...>
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#15 Rommie's Ronin

Rommie's Ronin

    Out Of The Silent Planet

  • Islander
  • 815 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 04:27 PM

Cyberhippie, on Aug 4 2004, 04:13 PM, said:

never mind, that was confrontational and rude
You do this a lot, I've noticed.  Impulsive are we? I used to be, so I understand. :D


I think it's a big mess.  If the condition wasn't laid out before hand, then she's been wronged, but for what?

If it was laid out beforehand, then she's guilty of violating workplace rules.
"Sure I wave the American flag. Do you know a better flag to wave? Sure I love my country with all her faults. I'm not ashamed of that, never have been and never will be." ---John Wayne

http://www.smokingse...n.com/swafr.htm

#16 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 04:32 PM

sorry, definite impulse issues

Let's see. I find the idea of firing someone because YOUR religion is offended to be prejudicial.

I don't see how it promotes a fair workplace unless 'We welcome every religion as long as it's ours' is a new definition of fair.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#17 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 04:52 PM

Rommie's Ronin, on Aug 4 2004, 02:25 PM, said:

I think it's a big mess.  If the condition wasn't laid out before hand, then she's been wronged, but for what?

If it was laid out beforehand, then she's guilty of violating workplace rules.
Well, but there's another layer.

She was warned about the policy once (the pizza) and then fired for the BLT. So even if they didn't make the policy clear upon hiring, she got a fair warning.

Really, the cynic in me says that her logic probably went something like this:

"You know.... I could always get a job somewhere else. And if I get fired for eating pork at work, I just might win millions in a civil suit....".

I wouldn't want to work with, work for, or employ this woman. If she lacks the discipline to do something so simple, she has no place in a vigorous work environment. If she really can't live without pork for one meal a day, she should have done the honorable thing and quit for another job. Yeesh.

On preview: If it was ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO HER, maybe she could have worked out a compromise? I.E., "What if I go out and eat lunch in my car when I have pork? Would that be okay?". If not, she can just drive off their property and eat; the policy specifically says 'on premises', by her own admission. The more I think about this, the more ludicrous her case seems.

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 04 August 2004 - 04:55 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#18 Rommie's Ronin

Rommie's Ronin

    Out Of The Silent Planet

  • Islander
  • 815 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 05:12 PM

^Yeah, you're right. :)
"Sure I wave the American flag. Do you know a better flag to wave? Sure I love my country with all her faults. I'm not ashamed of that, never have been and never will be." ---John Wayne

http://www.smokingse...n.com/swafr.htm

#19 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 05:30 PM

Cyberhippie, on Aug 4 2004, 02:30 PM, said:

sorry, definite impulse issues

Let's see. I find the idea of firing someone because YOUR religion is offended to be prejudicial.

I don't see how it promotes a fair workplace unless 'We welcome every religion as long as it's ours' is a new definition of fair.
Seems to me though that so long as the rules are clear and so long as the goal is neutrality toward all religion (for example, crosses on walls are no more allowed than pork) then that is the private employer's perogative.

Whoever said that the key is to make sure that the rules are clear, even handed, and applied consistently has the right of it imo.

Lil
Posted Image

#20 Mr. Synystyr

Mr. Synystyr

    Watching from the shadows...

  • Islander
  • 459 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 05:31 PM

She was fired over an unwritten policy?  That seems... odd.  My understanding of the prohibition against eating pork doesn't mesh with this situation, either.  I would say that it is either religious discrimination (and they know it, or the policy would be written down), or there was another reason for her termination which is not being stated.

Why is it religious discrimination?  She has been fired for not following the religious prohibitions of her employer.  Think of it this way - what if she had been fired for taking the Lord's name in vain?

Or am I way off base?

:yin-yang:

Edited by Mr. Synystyr, 04 August 2004 - 05:31 PM.

Feel the velvet darkness caressing you...



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Religion, Islam, Unclean Meat, Workplace

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users