Religious Discrimination?

Question

An owner of a deli in mycity is being sued for religious discrimination after he recently fired a Muslim for not being able to perform the job he was hired for. The owner hired the Muslim, not asking his religious affiliation (because it's illegal) and wasn't aware that Muslims cannot handle pork products. The job, was to cut various lunchmeats, prepare and serve various foods, most of which contained pork products (ham, bacon, sausage) or things like shrimp and crab. The employee refused to handle these products claiming it to be against his religion. The owner even provided him with rubber gloves so his skin wouldnt contact the meats. But, the employee claimed a thin peice of laytex didnt keep out the "uncleanliness"

Now, I am not an authority on Islam but there are quite a few Muslims here that own delis and handle pork products even if they dont eat it. Was this employee wrong or was the owner wrong for fiering him? How do you think the court will rule?

Answer 1

If the employer made every attempt to accommodate the employee and the employee still could not perform the job functions as required the employer is justified in terminating the employee.

Answer 2

I think that I agree with "spiritwalker" that the employee should have made it clear at the job interview that he cannot handle certain cuts of meat. Maybe the employer should have asked, but the employer cannot be reasonably expected to know of every possible religion out there, and prepare a long questionnaire for applicants to fill out. Certainly the Muslin realized that the deli was not halal when he applied for the job? Usually a "halal" deli has a sign in the window that says so.

The employer (the Deli owner) fulfilled his legal obligation to make reasonable accommodation for his employee's beliefs by offering latex gloves.

Answer 3

Being a Muslim myself, i probably would not get a job that I KNEW did something against my religion. I would say that the Muslim should have known that delis dealt with some pork, unless it was a non pork store...
I would have to say that the store owner had rights to fire him, because he could not do his job. Lets be real...when you get a job you know what you will be dealing with, i am sure the owner told the Muslim what they were expected to do. There should have bee no lawsuit to begin with--,maybe a misunderstanding.

Answer 4

I think that the owner did exactly what he needed to do: fired the man for not being able to perform the JOB THAT HE WAS HIRED FOR.

If the owner was unaware of two things:
1. that the man was Muslim upon hire
2. that the man's religion prohibits him from handling meat (and the Muslim should have known this... why did he apply at a DELI?!)
then he should not be charged with religious discrimination.

The same goes for pharmacists who refuse to do the job that they were hired for because they think their religious belief gives them special dispensation.

Answer 5

Neither the employee nor the employer was 'wrong'. The employee has strict religious rules that he interprets in a way that is not conducive to his new job. The employer needs an employee to perform certain tasks. Do you imagine that all Muslims are devout to the same degree? Are Christians? Of course not.

We have no way of guessing how the court will rule in this case, since we only have your description of the events.

Answer 6

I find it ridiculous that the worker didn't think for a moment that working in a DELI might require him to handle pork products! That's a no-brainer, seriously! Why would you even bother applying for a job that had such a clear potential of putting you in contact with a food that you aren't allowed to touch for religious reasons?

While your friend may be at fault only in not making a specific reference to handling pork products as part of the job description, I sincerely hope this gets thrown out of court for the frivolous lawsuit that it is.

)O(

Answer 7

If the employee wasn't prepared to do the job, then he applied under false pretenses and deserves to be let go. If he accepted the job he was implicitly agreeing to handle the meat--by refusing to after the fact, his acceptance of the job was a lie.

Either do the job you were hired to do, or find one that you are prepared to do. Freedom of religion does not come into this situation.

Answer 8

What you're asking is should the deli owner pay wages to the guy indefinately, without getting any use out of him.
One question that I have, why did the Muslim seek employment in a place that he knew handled material that he refused to touch ? I believe it was a well thought out plan. Like finding fingers, mice, bugs, and a lot of other things in food.
These " I'll sue you ah-soles" are everywhere.

Answer 9

I don't think he should be sued for religious discrimination...

The person cannot do the job they were hired to perform, it's as simple as that. When that happens, you fire them.

The owner even went above and beyond to try and accomodate the person's beliefs by providing gloves, so he's showing that he's trying to work with that person's differences and beliefs. But if the person flat out refuses to perform the job he was hired for, even with modifications, then he should be fired. The religious discrimination tag is ridiculous.

People will sue for any and everything.

Answer 10

Simply stated, the employee doesn't have a case. Certainly employers need to make some allowances for the religious stuff their employees choose to abide by - but when that is the sum total of the job....

I'm not a lawyer (thank .... well, thank me) but I have the misfortune of working with them. And I used to work in the labor law area. Which doesn't make me an expert by any means, but you see this kind of crap all the time.

Obviously there are details which haven't been provided, but assuming that the basic facts of the case are as stated, that's my ruling.