![]() |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I am confused why she needs accommodation.
It is consuming alcohol that is against her religion (given that she is not a very small splinter sect). Serving alcohol is not a problem. Just like Christians not serving same-sex couples. Nothing in religion says that it is a sin. So, I don't see why the airline should have been mandated to accommodate her. They did what they thought appropriate. If she could make an arrangement, fine. But her arrangement fell through. And as such, did not work. From my read, her accommodation is not necessary. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Necessary isn't the standard, UEL. All she needs is religious reasons for the request, not a religious requirement.
However, the accommodation need only be reasonable, and it's not reasonable to require the airline to hire someone else or create a special version of the job just for her. Also, the accommodation process is supposed to be a dialog. The employee can't usually say "this is the accommodation you have to give me and I won't accept anything else", especially if the employer offers an alternative that would work. Seaboe |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It's also not reasonable to place an undue burden on other employees. In this specific case it sounds like they expected other employees to voluntarily change the way they do their jobs even if that might make their jobs harder, or at least more complicated. Either you are asking others to do you a favour, which means they get to say no (otherwise it's not a favour) or you are compelling others to alter their work to suit you in which case that's not voluntary and it's still not an accommodation.
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
She's not suing a co-worker for saying no when she asked for a favor, though. It's possible the co-worker said yes to the favor and then filed the complaint, but that wouldn't be the plaintiff's fault.
ETA: I haven't seen any indication that the complaining co-worker was ever at risk of being punished for not agreeing to the favor. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
There is no standard that a belief has to be mainstream, or sanctioned by authorities within the person's stated religion. In theory, you could use evidence like that perhaps to try to prove that a person was making up a sham belief to get out of part of their job, and that it was not a sincerely held religious belief, but it would be very hard to prove, given the legal standard. I think very very few cases are defended on that basis. (I'm reminded of a plot in Orange is the New Black, which takes place in a women's prison. Spoilers..... At one point, some prisoners start claiming to be Jewish and saying they need kosher meals, because those meals are better. The claims were not originally based on sincerely held beliefs, but in the process of studying to be able to back up her claim of being Jewish, one of the prisoners becomes a sincere believer and converts.) There is not much--or any-- difference that you could see from the outside between a person making a sham claim and a person making a sincere claim based on a new, newly adopted, or completely individualized religious belief. And a person who is only sporadically observant may even seem to an outside observer to be less sincere than someone making a sham claim, but the sporadically observant person is entitled to accommodation if it is not unduly burdensome. Last edited by erwins; 12 August 2016 at 04:49 PM. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
So what does a Jewish flight attendant do if he/she has to serve pork as part of the in flight meal (when there is such)?
OY |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
They use their left hand.
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
ETA: Ok, it looks like on domestic flights with food for purchase the menu does include sandwiches that contain ham. But I've never seen it on long haul flights with complementary meals. Last edited by WildaBeast; 12 August 2016 at 06:04 PM. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Generally speaking, the Halacha (Jewish law) is not to eat pork, nothing about handling a tray with it on it. There are some foods (e.g. milk and meat together) that we are not supposed to derive benefit from, but it would take a psak (ruling from a Rabbi) on whether being paid to serve, but not being the owner of the food (i.e. not a restaurant owner) is considered deriving benefit. We are also not supposed to enable another Jew to violate Halacha, so I guess one whose job involves serving pork would be concerned that they would be serving a non-observant Jewish customer, or even someone who is Jewish by Halacha but does not consider themselves Jewish (say one grandparent is Jewish and it happens to be the maternal grandmother.)
So, anyway, that is an overly complicated answer which demonstrates that some would want to avoid it and some would not bother, but also none of that matters in the U.S. for the reason explained by erwins, Either the service is a fundamental part of the job or it is not, and the necessary accomodation is an undue burden or it is not. One of the reasons to go to a judge is to have him or her decide on the second question, and I guess the first questions, but he or she will not be deciding if Muslims can touch or serve wine. Unless your question was "Has the airline ever more fully accommodated another religious person with a similar request?" and the Jew/pork was an example. ETA: Years ago (decades really) when full breakfast was served, there was sausage and the like. I think with the optional box lunches you can buy, there is still a ham sandwich. But I am probably not the best to say considering I fly about once a year and eat ham approximately zero times a year ![]() Last edited by Dr. Dave; 12 August 2016 at 06:18 PM. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
OY |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
1) If there's generally only one flight attendant on the flights she's expected to serve on, then I don't see how they can reasonably accommodate her, other than possibly by moving her to another job entirely. So in that case I wouldn't expect them to have to.
2) However, if there's generally only one flight attendant on the flights she's expected to serve on, how is it that there's another person that she tried to work out accommodation with (but who appears to have been prejudiced), as well as from the sound of it other people who she was successful in working our accommodation with? I don't see how either of those things could have happened if she were the only person in the position on the flight; there'd be nobody to negotiate with. And it would make no sense whatsoever for the airline to have told her to work it out with coworkers if she hasn't got any. |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Seaboe |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Ah.
But if they told her that she'd just have to work it out with other employees, that sounds as if she was already working flights with multiple flight attendants. I suppose it's possible that they told her they'd accommodate her as far as changing her schedule, but that she'd have to take it from there by herself. That seems an odd sort of halfhearted way to deal with it, though; neither one thing nor the other. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Yeah, I wonder if the accommodation she asked for was to change her schedule so that she would only have to work on the larger planes with two flight attendants. As I said before schedules at airlines are usually based on seniority, so I wonder if some of her coworkers were upset that she would get a better schedule that someone at her seniority level wouldn't typically get.
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
According to Wikipedia, ExpressJet has 237 single flight attendant jets and 69 dual flight attendant jets. So just over 1/3 of their flight attendants would be on dual flights. No idea what turnover is, but I've heard that regional airlines like that don't keep people for long as they are used as stepping stones. It is possible that her 3 years experience was enough seniority to put her on the top 1/3 anyway.
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
If union rules dictate that scheduling requests be granted according to seniority, the airline may not be able to give her the schedule she wants. I had to research this issue once, and US law is all over the place as far as whether reasonable accommodations trump union rules and when.
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I wonder whether the larger or the smaller flights are considered preferable?
I don't know enough about the job to be able to tell. Having help is generally preferable; but if a job more than twice as large is being divided into two, it might be preferred to be on the smaller ones. Also, the layout of the planes may make a difference; so may the particular airports each tends to stop at. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
This could very well be.
As far as I have experienced in Canada, an individual's belief is not sufficient (eg an individual's sincerely held belief in their interpretation of the Bible will not survive a challenge if the "reasonable observer" does not agree to that interpretation. So, as such, if this flight attendant's disagreement on serving alcohol is her own personally held belief, it might very well fail the test. But, to be completely honest, I am not a lawyer challenging this in court. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Actually, after 30 seconds of Google research (so I'm now totally qualified on this subject!), I'm thinking Canadian law in this area is pretty similar to U.S. law, and the union seniority requirement may not be a barrier to granting this employee's request:
Quote:
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mississippi Law on Serving Gays Proves Divisive | Rebochan | Soapbox Derby | 4 | 01 July 2016 10:05 PM |
Hunt for flight attendant with 70 pounds of cocaine in carry-on at LAX | snopes | Police Blotter | 10 | 24 March 2016 02:13 AM |
FBI: Flight attendant set bathroom on fire on Detroit-bound plane | TallGeekyGirl | Police Blotter | 0 | 03 March 2016 03:12 PM |
UK retailer M&S apologises after Muslim worker refused to sell alcohol | Sue | Business Bytes | 151 | 24 February 2014 04:14 PM |
Muslim USAF vet headed to Qatar says he was barred from boarding flight | snopes | Soapbox Derby | 1 | 09 February 2013 09:59 PM |