snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Moot Court

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 14 August 2016, 06:16 AM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,163
Baseball

Absolutely.**

But, what if said person is only person who has that belief? That has been tried in Canada (not in Ontario) and it failed (about blood donations).

That is my main point. It is the exact same situation where people don't want to serve same-sex couples. There is no prohibition in Islam from serving alcohol. Just like there is no prohibition in Christianity to serve same-sex couples.

So, my initial thought was that the airline did its due diligence by offering her the ability to shape her work shift with her fellow crew members.

My second thought is:

- are there other beliefs she has that will impact her ability to do work? Will she refuse to touch a male to whom she is not related? Assisting a mobility restricted male move down an aisle (unrelated) is actually a prohibition in Islam. Is the airline going to have to make an accommodation for that?

However, I will concede that a mere handful of news stories is not definitive enough to determine what went on.

**They are similar. However, that application of the laws seems to be different in many areas**. This is from the Ontario Human Rights Code, and unfortunately I work with the Canadian Human Rights Code. So, there are nuances that are different.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 15 August 2016, 07:09 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,644
No

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlegendfanatic View Post
I'd be interested in knowing how many people who are supporting the airline stewardess also support Kim Davis (who wouldn't marry gays) or those cake decorators who wouldn't sell cakes for gay weddings. There's no difference other than the religion - in both cases you want to get paid for a job you won't do because your religion won't let you.
Umm, no. Just no.

When Kim Davis refused to allow marriage licenses for same-sex couples to be issued in her name, she was preventing all same-sex couples in her jurisdiction from getting married. When a flight attendant refuses to serve alcohol, she isn't preventing all customers from drinking; she's just necessitating that the airline have some other employee handle the task. (If Kim Davis had just personally refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but allowed others on her staff to do it, then those scenarios would be comparable.)

And while the proscription of alcohol is a well-established tenet of Islam that is referenced several times in the Qur'an, the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cakes for same-sex couples.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 16 August 2016, 12:27 AM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,493
Default

Taking a job when you know that you will be unwilling/unable to fulfill your duties should be grounds for dismissal. You may have different laws in the US, but we in Australia are asked if we have any condition that stops us from completing the role.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 16 August 2016, 01:12 AM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,051
Default

In the case in the OP the flight attendant only recently converted. I agree with you that someone shouldn't take a job when they know ahead of time there are aspects of the job they can't or won't do but should they have to resign if there is a way that they can be accommodated?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 16 August 2016, 03:23 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,525
Default

I don't see handing out recreational drugs as an essential part of a flight attendant's duties - especially when others can do it. If Kim Davis didn't want to serve the marijuana at a convenience store, and the store could reasonably accommodate that request, I wouldn't have any problem at all with that. Leaving the issues of employee and employer rights to the law experts, I can't even imagine why anyone would make a huge fuss about such accommodation.

If she had a terrible allergy to peanuts - to the point that she couldn't handle the little peanut bags - would we insist she be one of the ones who hands out the peanuts? If that's grounds for dismissal, I think people have their priorities really really wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 16 August 2016, 03:46 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,041
Default

I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a job and requesting a reasonable accommodation. But taking a job, or worse, entering a profession (like being a doctor or a pharmacist) and wanting to be allowed to discriminate against a group of people and/or be excused from an essential or major part of one's job is not the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 16 August 2016, 03:50 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,644
Airplane

Quote:
Originally Posted by damian View Post
Taking a job when you know that you will be unwilling/unable to fulfill your duties should be grounds for dismissal.
And the airline is free to dismiss her if they can't reasonably accommodate her. But either way, nobody is being harmed but her.

Also, not every airline serves alcohol on every flight, so being a flight attendant doesn't necessarily mean you will have to serve alcohol as part of your duties. Depends whom you're working for, and how they assign you.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 16 August 2016, 05:42 AM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Also, not every airline serves alcohol on every flight, so being a flight attendant doesn't necessarily mean you will have to serve alcohol as part of your duties. Depends whom you're working for, and how they assign you.
99.99% percent of all stewardess never have to perform an emergency evacuation of their aircraft but that is 100% of the reason why airplanes have them. A physical handicap that would prevent a stewardess from evacuating an aircraft is certainly grounds for not hiring (or firing) that person even though the chances of them ever having to use that skill is basically zero.

Jobs often include things that are done only sometimes. That doesn't make those things non-critical parts of the job.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 16 August 2016, 05:44 AM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
I don't see handing out recreational drugs as an essential part of a flight attendant's duties - especially when others can do it.
Those "recreational drugs" make the airlines millions of dollars a year. So, ya, that pretty much defines an "essential part" of the attendant's duties.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 16 August 2016, 07:04 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,525
Default

One has to wonder how much the net profit is compared to other sources of income considering free drinks, the cost of incidents, and problems such as the OP problem. (Ugh, last time I flew to the Americas I honestly could not believe one was not arrested upon arrival - I mean nothing happened to him even though he had threatened all kinds of things, including other passengers, and nearly had to be restrained the whole flight.)
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 16 August 2016, 12:49 PM
overyonder overyonder is offline
 
Join Date: 03 March 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
Those "recreational drugs" make the airlines millions of dollars a year. So, ya, that pretty much defines an "essential part" of the attendant's duties.
I have a strong hunch (and before you ask, NO, I can't prove it) that airlines do not pay much (if any) for beer and wine that are on the planes, in the name of advertising and product placement. A quick google search returned nothing mind you.

Yes, it DOES cost the airlines to put it there, in the sense of labor and fuel to carry it around.

OY
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 16 August 2016, 02:35 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
Jobs often include things that are done only sometimes. That doesn't make those things non-critical parts of the job.
In case I'm misreading that post: Are you comparing a hypothetical hiree who has a physical condition that could prevent assisting passengers in an emergency evacuation to an employee with a desire to not serve alcohol?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 16 August 2016, 07:12 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
In case I'm misreading that post: Are you comparing a hypothetical hiree who has a physical condition that could prevent assisting passengers in an emergency evacuation to an employee with a desire to not serve alcohol?
Yep. In one case it is a life critical function of the job that happens extremely rarely. In the other case it is an every day function that actually makes the airline money. Both are perfectly valid reasons for not hiring a person or firing an employee.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 16 August 2016, 09:47 PM
Twankydillo's Avatar
Twankydillo Twankydillo is offline
 
Join Date: 10 January 2006
Location: Salford, England
Posts: 2,796
Default

A good team is not everybody doing equal tasks in exact proportional measure, regardless of ability, knowledge, enthusiasm or whatever other factors might come in to it. If somebody cannot do a part of their job that others can do, it certainly doesn't necessarily mean they are not good for that job.

Problems generally occur if it is a major part of the job, if it obstructs other people (and that can be hard to define because there are likely people out there who believe making something wheelchair accessible is taking too many liberties), or if you do not add any strengths to even your limitations. Or if you're just being a bit of a cock, and I would say denying medication is that - I'm not going to pretend to have any tolerance for that kind of thing.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 17 August 2016, 12:47 AM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
If she had a terrible allergy to peanuts - to the point that she couldn't handle the little peanut bags - would we insist she be one of the ones who hands out the peanuts? If that's grounds for dismissal, I think people have their priorities really really wrong.
What about if she went for a job in a peanut factory? If your job requirements include a task, you agree to perform that task on acceptance of the job offer.

If she expected the other team members to cover her duties, where does that expectation stop?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 18 August 2016, 04:48 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,041
Default

It stops when it's unreasonable, or constitutes an undue burden. It is the law in this country, and I think in yours, too, that you can accept a job and then engage in a process to determine whether you can perform the job with a reasonable accommodation.

And in a case like the OP, the person already had the job, and then developed a conflict between her religious belief and a portion of her job when she converted to a new faith. Again, the law says that she is entitled to engage in a process of determining whether her limitation can be reasonably accommodated.

Whether it can be or not, there is nothing wrong with engaging in the process in good faith.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 18 August 2016, 06:23 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damian View Post
What about if she went for a job in a peanut factory? If your job requirements include a task, you agree to perform that task on acceptance of the job offer.
This has nothing to do with peanut factories or breweries or distilleries. It's an airplane; It doesn't run on alcohol.
Quote:
If she expected the other team members to cover her duties, where does that expectation stop?
That's what bosses (and, in the end, rules and laws) are for.

I'm of the opinion that we make reasonable concessions to abilities and even preferences all the time in the workplace. Yet the ones that tend to get used to devaluate performance are often the ones that are perceived as being arbitrary, selfish, or in some way not "normal" -- regardless of their actual impact on the work or other employees.

Perhaps in most countries, differences such as pay disparities may exacerbate these problems. There are some things I do that my colleagues cannot or do not do and some they do that I don't as well. Those differences are usually not reflected in our pay or positions. That can lead to problems but, on the other hand, something like the OP issue would probably never come close to being a problem. Practically no one would care that a certain employee would not do a specific part of the job. We would just try to adapt by delegating some other thing they could do. If anyone complained, they would probably be seen as the petty troublemaker, rather than the person who made the request not to do a certain thing. (In my environment, there would have to be a "reason" but religious reasons are generally acceptable, even though they are probably a bit more rare than other places.)
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 18 August 2016, 08:30 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
If she had a terrible allergy to peanuts - to the point that she couldn't handle the little peanut bags - would we insist she be one of the ones who hands out the peanuts? If that's grounds for dismissal, I think people have their priorities really really wrong.
At this airline in particular? It sucks, but yeah, IMO it might not be reasonable for her to stay employed as a flight attendant if the products she'd be expected to serve could kill her. When she's on the plane, she's in a workplace of one or two, not "one of the ones." Ideally a company in such a situation would help someone in that situation find alternate employment in the company, but I don't know if that's required.

Last edited by lord_feldon; 18 August 2016 at 08:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 18 August 2016, 05:42 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
One has to wonder how much the net profit is compared to other sources of income considering free drinks,
Free drinks? What?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 18 August 2016, 07:03 PM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Madeline View Post
Free drinks? What?
First class, economy comfort, international flights, coupons that airlines and flight attendants sometimes give out...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mississippi Law on Serving Gays Proves Divisive Rebochan Soapbox Derby 4 01 July 2016 09:05 PM
Hunt for flight attendant with 70 pounds of cocaine in carry-on at LAX snopes Police Blotter 10 24 March 2016 01:13 AM
FBI: Flight attendant set bathroom on fire on Detroit-bound plane TallGeekyGirl Police Blotter 0 03 March 2016 02:12 PM
UK retailer M&S apologises after Muslim worker refused to sell alcohol Sue Business Bytes 151 24 February 2014 03:14 PM
Muslim USAF vet headed to Qatar says he was barred from boarding flight snopes Soapbox Derby 1 09 February 2013 08:59 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.