Are all black men chauvenistic pigs?

[Narrock]

Your Rights During the Job Selection Process

The EEOC guidelines forbid an employer to ask a prospective employee any questions regarding availability to work on specific days, such as Friday nights and Saturdays, until the job has been offered. At that point, if the employer has a business necessity, he/she may inquire into your availability for Sabbath work, but he/she then has the same obligation to attempt to make an accommodation as he/she does for employees already on the job.

In your interview, if it is made clear that you are being hired to work on a shift that includes the Sabbath, or that Sabbath work is a condition of employment, be certain that the job is offered before you discuss the Sabbath schedule problem. Do not accept employment conditions that include Sabbath working hoping to make a change later. When the job is definitely offered to you and the only problem is Sabbath scheduling, request an accommodation in harmony with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the EEOC guidelines. If the problem arises during the oral interview, follow up the conversation with the request in writing for an accommodation.

Some Sabbatarians have been refused employment when no Sabbath problem existed merely because the applicant brought up the subject (in the selection process) and the employer decided to eliminate any potential problem.

If the job description includes Sabbath work hours, request an accommodation at the time of your acceptance. Your employer is entitled to prompt notice, and you want to give him/her maximum opportunity to resolve the problem.

If the prospective employer fails to hire you, be sure to ask the reason you were denied employment, especially if the subject of Sabbath work has been raised.

If refused employment because of the Sabbath, obtain a copy of the labor contract to determine if it caused the accommodation not to be made.

Keep all papers, newspaper ads, notices, and other documents relating to the prospective employer's advertising for new employees.

[Gaazy]

If you can prove it you can take them to court? Seems like something like that would be hell to prove, unless they made a direct comment that attacked the religion or told you thats the reason they wouldn't hire you.


Personally though, I think the employer should be able to say fuck you im not hiring you, for whatever reason they damn well want to whether it be race, religion, or too small of a fucking cock. I think that should be their own business and not the governments, but I dont write the laws so I'll just sit here and deal with it

[Narrock]

If you can prove it you can take them to court? Seems like something like that would be hell to prove, unless they made a direct comment that attacked the religion or told you thats the reason they wouldn't hire you.


Personally though, I think the employer should be able to say fuck you im not hiring you, for whatever reason they damn well want to whether it be race, religion, or too small of a fucking cock. I think that should be their own business and not the governments, but I dont write the laws so I'll just sit here and deal with it

Unfortunately, the burden-of-proof lies with the complainant. It's all too easy for an employer to just say in court, "We hired someone more qualified" or some other BS.

[Lueyen]

double post

[Lueyen]

Your Rights During the Job Selection Process

The EEOC guidelines forbid an employer to ask a prospective employee any questions regarding availability to work on specific days, such as Friday nights and Saturdays, until the job has been offered. At that point, if the employer has a business necessity, he/she may inquire into your availability for Sabbath work, but he/she then has the same obligation to attempt to make an accommodation as he/she does for employees already on the job.

Interpretation by the biased sight you quoted, sneconline.org. In a quick perusal of the EEOC website its self I found an opposing interpretation by EEOC staff.

While Title VII prohibits most employers from making hiring, firing and other employment decisions based on an applicant or employee's religious beliefs or practices (or lack thereof), it is not per se illegal to ask applicants questions regarding their religious background, beliefs, and practices. Rather, such questions would be potential evidence of the employer's discriminatory intent if a religious discrimination claim was filed by an applicant alleging he or she was not hired based on religion, except in the case of "religious" organizations, which are allowed to employ people of their own religion.

http://www.eeoc.gov/foia/letters/2005/titlevii_religious_ada_inquiries_examinations.html

Shall we stick with laws or court rulings of them and not delve into the realm of speculation and interpretation by church lawyers or government employees?

Not only is it not against any law to ask about work time availability in the application and hiring process, but it is strictly speaking not illegal to ask about religious background or orientation.

Lets take stock here:

You cited a case where a plaintiff won proving religious discrimination. However the case was vastly different then your own (by your description)

1.) The person was already employed - You were not
2.) There was an historical precedence - You had no history to set precedence.
3.) There was verbal evidence of discrimination - You had only a look, that could have been cause by a bad case of gas

You cited a case that ultimately ended up before SCOTUS, a case where the very ideas which you would have us believe are law were ruled unconstitutional. In essence you cited proof contrary what you argue, not for it.

You then quote an attorney's(at least I hope it was an attorney) interpretation of a federal organizations guidelines NOT, I repeat NOT actual law. I can't even find stated guidelines the even backup what you quoted, in fact all I can find is evidence to the contrary, and I remind you we are talking a federal organizations guidelines, not the letter of the law here.

Care to try again?

[Narrock]

double post

I don't care how you slice it Lueyen... you cannot discriminate against an applicant or employee based on their religious beliefs. Any company who does that is being very stupid and is taking a huge gamble by doing so. They should stop and think before making an idiotic decision that could potentially cause the company to lose millions of dollars.

[The Kizzy]

Do you read? I cited the exact LAW to you that says that if your refusal to not work weekends makes other employees work the weekends to cover for you, then it is not against the law. Are you stupid? Maybe that is why you idnt get hired, because youlack the ability to read and comprehend.

[Narrock]

Do you read? I cited the exact LAW to you that says that if your refusal to not work weekends makes other employees work the weekends to cover for you, then it is not against the law. Are you stupid? Maybe that is why you idnt get hired, because youlack the ability to read and comprehend.

And I've cited several EEOC laws that prove otherwise.

[Phlegm]

To answer the original question: NO.

[Sithos]

Mindia has always been blinded with tunnel vision

[The Kizzy]

Mindia, nothing you have cited has proven your stance. We have all pointed out your mistake, but you still continue to go full force with your train of thinking. Good Luck truck driving with your on par with Ivy league college degree.

[Narrock]

Kizzy, what part of this do you not understand?

Here's the law from http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

Religious Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Under Title VII:

Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices - except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.

Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment.

Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices by allowing: flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, modification of grooming requirements and other workplace practices, policies and/or procedures.

An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.

Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

And you want to comment about my comprehensions skills? This is hilarious

[Narrock]

Mindia, nothing you have cited has proven your stance. We have all pointed out your mistake, but you still continue to go full force with your train of thinking. Good Luck truck driving with your on par with Ivy league college degree.

And good luck with your expertise on floor tiling and window coverings. Don't be surprised if more people say to you, "Um, yeah... is there somebody else here I can talk to?"

[Lueyen]

double post

I don't care how you slice it Lueyen... you cannot discriminate against an applicant or employee based on their religious beliefs. Any company who does that is being very stupid and is taking a huge gamble by doing so. They should stop and think before making an idiotic decision that could potentially cause the company to lose millions of dollars.

I am not saying that you can or should discriminate. I am saying that choosing not to hire based on availability is not in and of its self discrimination, even if the reasons for unavailability are of a religious nature.

If the law felt that failure to accomodate religious practice via scheduling automatically meant discrimination there would not be the provisions for requiring proof of undue hardship. The law understands that an employer can make a justifiable decision of hiring based on availability of schedule regardless of the reasons of unavailability, and in doing so is showing no predjudice toward the persons religion.

[The Kizzy]

Kizzy, what part of this do you not understand?

Here's the law from http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

Religious Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Under Title VII:

Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices - except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.

Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment.

Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices by allowing: flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, modification of grooming requirements and other workplace practices, policies and/or procedures.

An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.
Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

And you want to comment about my comprehensions skills? This is hilarious

There I bolded the part you keep ignoring. The part that shows you are wrong.

[Narrock]

Kizzy, what part of this do you not understand?

Here's the law from http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

Religious Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Under Title VII:

Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices - except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.

Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment.

Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices by allowing: flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, modification of grooming requirements and other workplace practices, policies and/or procedures.

An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.
Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

And you want to comment about my comprehensions skills? This is hilarious

There I bolded the part you keep ignoring. The part that shows you are wrong.

How the hell is that showing me that I'm wrong? Employers have tried to play the "undue hardship" card and lost in court. The first bolded part is the key to the entire law... not the "omg what are we going to do? We can't get anybody else to work on Saturdays" BS.

[The Kizzy]

But the part I bolded says that it isn't illegal to tell you that you have to work Saturdays if it makes everyone else have to cover your shifts. Does your stupidity know no bounds?

[Lueyen]

Employers have tried to play the "undue hardship" card and lost in court. The first bolded part is the key to the entire law... not the "omg what are we going to do? We can't get anybody else to work on Saturdays" BS.

Not all Employers will lose this argument if they have justifiable reasons, yes those that use it to cover discrimination will hopefully lose court cases, that is the whole point of why they have to prove undue hardship.

If employers lost on the basis that the law had a loophole that violated civil rights then the law it's self would be unconstitutional and therefore would have to be rewritten, they lost on a basis that is exactly what the law tries to guard against in requiring proof of hardship.

Really Narrock, you posted an example of a case that went to SCOTUS, one in which a law specifically stated exactly what you are arguing. SCOTUS did not agree, and the law was struck down as being unconstitutional. Furthermore the judges cited thier reasoning as being exactly that which Kizzy is arguing. Think about that a second here, SCOTUS agrees with Kizzy.

[Tikker]

Kizzy, what part of this do you not understand?

Here's the law from http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

Religious Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Under Title VII:

Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices - except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.

Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment.

Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices by allowing: flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, modification of grooming requirements and other workplace practices, policies and/or procedures.

An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.

Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

And you want to comment about my comprehensions skills? This is hilarious

ahhhh yes, the sweet tang of irony is in the air

[Narrock]

Employers have tried to play the "undue hardship" card and lost in court. The first bolded part is the key to the entire law... not the "omg what are we going to do? We can't get anybody else to work on Saturdays" BS.

Not all Employers will lose this argument if they have justifiable reasons, yes those that use it to cover discrimination will hopefully lose court cases, that is the whole point of why they have to prove undue hardship.

If employers lost on the basis that the law had a loophole that violated civil rights then the law it's self would be unconstitutional and therefore would have to be rewritten, they lost on a basis that is exactly what the law tries to guard against in requiring proof of hardship.

Really Narrock, you posted an example of a case that went to SCOTUS, one in which a law specifically stated exactly what you are arguing. SCOTUS did not agree, and the law was struck down as being unconstitutional. Furthermore the judges cited thier reasoning as being exactly that which Kizzy is arguing. Think about that a second here, SCOTUS agrees with Kizzy.

Then why did the Adventist working for the FAA win when he said he wasn't going to work on the Sabbath? They tried telling the court that they would be "dangerously understaffed" if he didn't show up to work on Saturday. Well, he didn't and they fired him. The court directed the FAA to reinstate his employment, and he won the lawsuit with punitive damages of over 2 million dollars.

Now, I have to ask the question... Why would a company risk all that just to be assholes about making an employee work on a day that is sacred to them? The law protects people with regards to Sabbath days. They cannot fire you if you don't want to work on the Sabbath. Nor, can they deny you employment for that reason. That's the part many of you are not letting sink into your thick noggins.

[Tikker]

its because adventists are all cocksuckers that don't deserve to be treated like real people

[Narrock]

its because adventists are all cocksuckers that don't deserve to be treated like real people

You're such an idiot. How can you even live with yourself?

[Lueyen]

Employers have tried to play the "undue hardship" card and lost in court. The first bolded part is the key to the entire law... not the "omg what are we going to do? We can't get anybody else to work on Saturdays" BS.

Not all Employers will lose this argument if they have justifiable reasons, yes those that use it to cover discrimination will hopefully lose court cases, that is the whole point of why they have to prove undue hardship.

If employers lost on the basis that the law had a loophole that violated civil rights then the law it's self would be unconstitutional and therefore would have to be rewritten, they lost on a basis that is exactly what the law tries to guard against in requiring proof of hardship.

Really Narrock, you posted an example of a case that went to SCOTUS, one in which a law specifically stated exactly what you are arguing. SCOTUS did not agree, and the law was struck down as being unconstitutional. Furthermore the judges cited thier reasoning as being exactly that which Kizzy is arguing. Think about that a second here, SCOTUS agrees with Kizzy.

Then why did the Adventist working for the FAA win when he said he wasn't going to work on the Sabbath? They tried telling the court that they would be "dangerously understaffed" if he didn't show up to work on Saturday. Well, he didn't and they fired him. The court directed the FAA to reinstate his employment, and he won the lawsuit with punitive damages of over 2 million dollars.

Because the FAA was unable to prove undue burden, in fact the contrary was proven. It was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the supervisor not only setup the situation but made comments that were discriminatory.

From the case files:

http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-1461.htm

Evidence presented at trial supports Reed's contention that Hof orchestrated the situation which led to Reed's absences and, ultimately, his termination. First, Hof converted the QATS position to a one-year, temporary assignment. Reed then was required to bid for his days off and the accommodation problem arose. Although Hof testified that he was motivated by a desire to give other controllers the "opportunity at a career enhancing position," the jury was free to disregard his explanation. Hof then instructed the other controllers to re-bid their days off under the hypothetical assumption that Reed would be given every Friday and Saturday off. Reed testified that this created hostility and made it more difficult for him to convince other controllers to swap shifts with him. Hof then approved personnel actions that resulted in a staffing shortage at the Pueblo facility. Although the union agreed to the decrease in staffing, it was on the condition that Hof and the other members of management agree to cover leave requests. Reed testified that Hof nevertheless refused to cover his Saturday shifts. There was also evidence that Hof refused to implement alternative staffing plans that would have alleviated most of the accommodation problem.

Other evidence in the record supports the jury's finding that Hof's actions were motivated by intentional discrimination. Reed testified that Hof quizzed him repeatedly about his religious beliefs and frequently asked him to work on Saturdays while he was in the QATS position. Further, at a meeting in March 1995, Hof referred to Reed's religion as a "scam" and a religion of convenience. Hof's actions on May 27, 1995, when he turned the Pueblo airspace over to Denver Central after learning that Reed had been granted spot leave, could be interpreted by a jury as an indication of his hostility toward Reed.

Now, I have to ask the question... Why would a company risk all that just to be assholes about making an employee work on a day that is sacred to them? The law protects people with regards to Sabbath days. They cannot fire you if you don't want to work on the Sabbath. Nor, can they deny you employment for that reason. That's the part many of you are not letting sink into your thick noggins.

You see this is what you are missing here, it is conceivable for a company to be unable to feasibly accommodate requests for certain days off. The jury in this case found that the reason for the denial of time off was discrimination, and not undue strain, and frankly it looks like they were spot on.

The law makes a distinction you are missing, it distinguishes between denial of time off for the Sabbath based on realistic restrictive aspects of a business, and denial of time off based on religious prejudice and hate.

Now we've come full circle and you are back to again citing the first case you mentioned, the next one you mentioned went before the supreme court and the law stating point blank and without question that a company absolutely must grant an employee the Sabbath off was struck down as unconstitutional.

The law grants people protection from religion based bias in the work place, and this does include failure to accommodate time off for "holy days" but only to the extent that the failure to accommodate is based in prejudice toward a person for their religious beliefs. If due to the nature of a company or business granting those same days off requires undue stress on the company or extra ordinary actions then a company is well within their right within the confines of the law to deny the request.

The bottom line is that the law does not require a company to hire you if you can not work days they need covered, even if you are unavailable on those days due to religious belief. The law does not require that a company give you the days off, if it would require that the company go beyond normal means, those being the normal means used to facilitate ANYONES time off for ANY REASON.

Here is a realistic example for you.

Imagine you worked for a company where you and 2 other people did the same job on different shifts with different days off. Imagine you were the last one hired and that selection of days off was based on seniority, and this had been a long standing company policy. If the person with the most seniority had chosen Fridays and Saturdays off, then the company would not be obligated to force them to change their schedule to accommodate your possibly new found religious beliefs. I would think this situation would only occur if you converted to new religious beliefs after you had been working there because if you required Friday and Saturday off in this scenario you wouldn't be hired due to your availability not being congruent with what the company was looking for. In this case the company's inability to accommodate your request would be completely legitimate and legal.

[Markarado]

They need someone to work on a day that you cannot work. Mindia, you're not comprehending what is being said in the case brought up above. Honestly, I agree with you most of the time (not so much lately as before though). This time I think you're completely off the wall in your thinking.

[Martrae]

Will this thread not die?