US Sues School Over Denial Of Muslim Pilgrimage

YankeeFan, I wanted to address a few things in your post.

First, the feds do not have unlimited resources. It's possible -- although I wouldn't guess either way -- that the DOJ has more resources than the school district. But the government is very often outmanned in litigation, especially if the other side hires a high-powered law firm.

Second, when the government acts to enforce the law, it's supposed to be, for lack of a better word, intimidating. It's supposed to make other people stop and think that maybe they should follow the law, too. That's one of the goals of enforcing laws, whether in the criminal or civil context. The government -- with its limited resources -- can't go after everyone who breaks the laws; the hope is that the rest of us will see and learn from what happens to the people it does go after.

Third, no one is making this a crime. This is a civil action. No one's going to jail. The government wants an order requiring the school district to adopt a policy that reasonably accommodates the religious beliefs and practices of its employees and potential employees. It also seeks back pay, compensatory damages and reinstatement for the teacher. No punitive damages.

Fourth, asking where we draw the line on what's reasonable is a good question. That's what this is all about. We'll see what the courts think. That's how the law works in our country. You said in another post that if this is supposed to be allowed, the law should say so. The law -- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-2(a)(1) -- says it's illegal to discriminate against any individual with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of his or her religion. Our courts have decided what constitutes discrimination under that statute, and what doesn't. Instead of that, do you think Congress should have passed a series of specific laws detailing exactly what's prohibited? That would be impossible, for one thing. And it would lead to a lot of injustice, because inevitably situations would arise that weren't covered by specific statutory language.

Fifth, you're probably correct that some number of Muslims out there wants the United States to be governed by Sharia law. (I'm sure we could find some number of people out there who want lots of different things.) But let's assume that these Muslims actually agree on what Sharia law means. Let's assume that this teacher -- a working woman, presumably well-educated -- is one of those Muslims. Even if that's true, none of that meant the Justice Department had to file this lawsuit. Are you suggesting that the Justice Department filed the suit because it also wants the United States to be governed by Sharia law? Of course, that would almost certainly mean that that's what the Attorney General wants. And it's hard to imagine the Attorney General would take such a position without the knowledge and support of the President; perhaps it's being done at the President's bidding. So are you suggesting that Obama and Eric Holder want the imposition of Sharia law, too? Let's assume that's true. How would a victory in this suit help their cause? The courts would be interpreting and applying American law, not Islamic law. The school district would have to adopt a policy that reasonably accommodates all religions, not just Islam. Recognizing the right of a person to practice her religion does not elevate that religion over all others or impose that religion on people who don't practice it.

Sixth, you don't have to worry about those "unintended consequences" you hint at -- employers' refusing to hire Muslims -- because they're illegal. See 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-2(a)(1).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_Syria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_Jordan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_Iraq

 

First off, I want to thank Quakes & Bob for their thoughtful replies.

But, I think it is clear that the Justice Department is using this case to redefine and expand any previous meaning of the law.

I've seen no one cite any precedence to suggest that courts have previously ruled in favor of an employee with a similar claim.

For this school to be subjected to a federal lawsuit for turning down a 19 day leave during a critical point of the school year is unreasonable.

There is a way to redefine & expand law, and it begins with the Congress. It's not the Civil Rights Division's job to create, enact, define, or change law. It's supposed to enforce it.

And, you cannon underestimate the intimidation factor of a lawsuit brought by the Federal Government. There is no way this school will be able to match the resources of the Feds.

And, while Quakes is obviously right that it would be against the law to discriminate against Muslims in hiring, I think it's wrong to dismiss the unintended consequences of this suit.

A company with no woman, no African-Americans, or no Catholics would be pretty obvious.

But Muslims are still a small minority and so companies with few or no Muslims are not rare -- especially among smaller companies and especially in certain parts of the country.

It would be very hard to prove discrimination in most cases. You can't ask someone about their religion in the hiring process, so it might be hard to discriminate against certain religions. But, Muslims often have distinctively Muslim names. An employer who didn't want to risk the wrath of a federal lawsuit could weed out applicants very early in the hiring process.

I'm not advocating for such actions, but I don't think it's hard to imagine them occurring.

 

Thanks, YF. No doubt, there already are employers who screen, say, if they see a name looks "black," though a company would have to be 20 shades of dumb to do so. Plus, screening out "Muslim" names is an imperfect process. Not every Muslim has an Arabic-sounding name, as our Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson can attest. Also, I have friends with Arabic names who are, in fact, Christian (they're Syrian, like the mother's side of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels' family).

True, in most of the country, an employee requesting off for hajj isn't an issue. But if this case teaches employers anything, it's that they should have some policy in place covering accommodation for religious leave -- for any religion.

 

30 seconds of research is a small price to pay for avoiding posting ridiculous stuff like, well, this.

 

I'm curious if this is because of Jesus' role as a Prophet in Islam or because of the Christian minority in these countries.

I think a better question might be if an American teacher would be granted a 19 day leave in order to celebrate Christmas. (Or to extend his/her Christmas vacation to a total of 19 days.)

19 days isn't required to celebrate Christmas and it's not required to perform the Hajj. And, the Hajj is not required in any particular year.

 

Baby Jesus stolen twice from a Nativity scene in suburban Chicago:

 

"Requirement" is a key word in these cases. It's spelled out in this particular case that got some traction a few years ago, about an employee at an Indianapolis logistics firm who was told to stop telling outside vendors to "have a blessed day," after one of them complained.

http://openjurist.org/274/f3d/470/elizabeth-anderson-v-usf-logistics-inc-

The courts said the company made a "reasonable accommodation," in that she could use it in-house, and that they weren't going to fire or demote her for using it in-house. And, they noted that the plaintiff said saying "have a blessed day" was not a requirement of her religion, and that she did not use that as a signoff all the time.

Again, not knowing the tenor of the conversation between the teacher and her principal and/or superintendent and board, a few things could have happened that might have prevented the case from going this far (other than the school merely approving the request).

1. The authorities could have, after consulting their attorney, realized that the hajj was a requirement of the teacher's religion, and proceeded from that point.

2. The administration could have, if it had to, worked with the local teachers union to make an addendum to the contract so that religious leave language could be included.

3. The administration could have told the teacher that, while it's working this out, that the request is not granted for a certain year, but that arrangements would be made for the next year, or whenever the first hajj occurs after the contract language is amended. After all, the hajj is required, but only once in a lifetime.

4. The administration also could, if its lawyer says so, reasonably say that, after the initial request for the hajj is granted, that any more requests from this teacher for future pilgrimages will be handled on a case-by-case basis, per whatever language is in the contract. After all, if the letter of the law is that you can't prevent something required by religion, and the religion says you need to go only once, then you aren't duty-bound to grant the leave again. The case I linked to above says case law is clear that reasonable accommodation does not equal the employee getting what he or she wants.

Of course, the issue of "undue hardship" to the employer does enter the equation, but as others have pointed out, employers have handled medical leaves of 19 days (or more), so it would be difficult to prove that the school suffered an undue hardship for a teacher leaving for that period.

More is spelled out here:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

 

It's always amusing to me in these arguments when somebody responds with: "Well, do you think they'd give Christians the same treatment in their countries?"

No. They likely wouldn't.

But might I point out that we've taken great pride in that fact for generations now.

It's a tradition I'd sort of like to see continue on.

 

Something else that would be interesting to know is how the district handles requests by other teachers for time off for other religious holidays that aren't part of the school calendar.

And i guess it would be good to know what's in the union contract regarding time off.

 

Those noted that Christmas and Easter are celebrated by Christians. But how big a deal are those holidays allowed to be in those countries? And would a public school teacher or other public employee in those countries be allowed to take days off for a Christian holiday.
Don't make me laugh.

 

Would you like to be like those other countries?