Lina Morales, who is Catholic, was fired from her administrative assistant job at Rising Star, a central Florida telecommunications firm with strong Muslim ties, for eating a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich. The firm bans pork from its premises because the Koran regards it as unclean.
She’s suing.
UPDATE
Eugene Volokh says (in effect) that employees have no right to eat BLTs (or other foods regarded as unclean) on an employer’s premises.
From my experience volunteering at an employment law resource center for workers, employee rights pretty much suck. Besides legislation protecting expressive freedom, I recommend organizing, but labor rights in general suck too.
From the sound of that news story, muslim employers suck too.
Good to see Volokh’s analysis, though my concern is that all a story like this does, once the employee loses her case, is generate clamoring to “close the loopholes” that still allow people some choice as to how to spend their money.
Some employers certainly suck. Labor law certainly sucks.
But employers, generally being human beings, have some rights too. If you own the business, you get to make most of the rules about how that business is run.
While “eating codes” are a rather novel idea, they are no different than dress codes, anti-tattoo-in-visible-places codes, or others like them.
And, please, on what grounds do we assume that a sectarian code (i.e., eat whatever you want) is better than another code (i.e., except pork)? Is it that because “You’re Muslim, so your rights don’t count”?
Do you think a Hassidic Jew would permit a BLT in his business? Or an Orthodox Jew? Maybe a secular or a non-practicing Jew would.
Sheesh!
I’m not sure that a Hassidic or Orthodox Jew would object to a BLT in his place of business, as long it was being consumed by a non-Jew. Jews are kind of on the other end of the proselytizing scale from Muslims. I don’t think they really care what non-Jews do. Of course, I have no way to know really.
It troubles me that the employer did not have a written policy to the effect that pork was not allowed on company property. But they state that they had previously warned her, so that’s that.
I blogged on this one yesterday, more asking questions than answering them.
http://precinct333.blogspot.com/2004/08/religious-freedom-v-religious-freedom.html
As I’ve though on it, I realize that I would have to come down on the side of the employer here. He is trying to accommodate an entire workforce. In doing so, he has placed a slight limit on all employees in order to meet the religious needs of other employees. And since Ms. Morales can’t demonstrate a religious need to eat pork, while the workers can demonstrate a religious need to avoid the potential contamination fo their food by pork products in a fridge or microwave, or on a table or countertop, I would have to side with the restriction.
In the end, how is this different from my former employer (a black owned business) banning Coca Cola products fromt he premises during a national boycott by “civil rights” (sic) groups? Or another that banned Nestle products due to the company’s baby-formula marketing policies? While stupid, they were clearly legal. Are we going to decide that religiously based actions are LESS deserving of the protection of the law and constitution than those based upon philosophy or politics? Seems to fly in the face of every conception of relgious freedom I’ve ever heard of.
But then again, I would personally repeal virtually every “civil rights” (sic) law that is applied to private businesses and individuals if it was in my power, on the theory that the marketplace is better suited to handles such issues in the long-run than the government is. Only those acts of discrimination that society considers molrally accdptable will be economically viable.
“Only those acts of discrimination that society considers molrally accdptable will be economically viable.”
Only to the extent that there is money behind that moral acceptance.
Of course this is legal. It seems with all of the employment discrimination laws and labor regulations — most of which shouldn’t exist in the first place — that we have lost sight of the default rule relating to employment relations. Employment at will. Decisions can be made for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.
In order to prove a claim of religious discrimination, the Catholic employee would have to prove that she had a bona-fide religious obligation TO eat pork, which according to my understanding of the faith, she doesn’t.
John Posted:
Some employers certainly suck. Labor law certainly sucks.
But employers, generally being human beings, have some rights too. If you own the business, you get to make most of the rules about how that business is run.
—
I think there is a big difference between deciding how a business is run (and the federal govt disagrees that the details up to the employer BTW) and deciding that all employees have to live by the dictates of your religion.
Imagine the uproar if Muslims were not allowed to eat as their religion or tastes dictate.
Would you say the same thing if it was demanded that she wear traditional muslim dress for women, which is the Burka I believe, and the face must be veiled?
Rich
Rich, if it were as their religion dictated, that would be illegal, as Volokh explained. If it were as their tastes dictated, they could clean out their desks.
Personally I’m of the opinion that hiring and firing should be at the whim of the employer, without exemptions for religion, race, sex, etc., meaning a business should be free to require all employees to wear burkas and veils, but that unfortunately isn’t the law.
It seems to me that they’re forcing their religion on her. “The firm bans pork from its premises because the Koran regards it as unclean.” I could understand if this was a Muslim charity or an organization related to religion but it isn’t.
This is from Volokh’s link:
“She was being discriminated against based on her nonreligious actions, not based on her religious beliefs.”
Yes, but whether or not eating pork is permissible is dependent on one’s religion. I do think this is a violation of Morales’ religious freedom.
Using this same rationale, a Christian conservative employer would be forcing his or her religion on a homosexual if they fired such a homosexual employee because of the employee’s sexual orientation.
Jon,
Sexual preference is not a protected activity. So an employer–whether on religious, secular or frivolous grounds–can say “I don’t hire Gays.”
“Sexual preference is not a protected activity….”
Neither is Pork eating.
(And as regards sexual orientation, in certain states and localities it is. But at the federal level, as well as in those “other” state and localities, it is not. As far as I know, pork eating isn’t protected anywhere, unless you can tell me the religion that demands that you DO eat pork.)
Posted by Jon Rowe, Esq.
“Sexual preference is not a protected activity….”
Neither is Pork eating.
—
But religous freedom is guaranteed in the Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The problem is you do not have any right to force others to obey the dicates of your religion. Mrs. Morales has a Constitutional right to not be bound by the restrictions of a religous text, the Koran in this case.
This is a Constiutional issue, IMHO.
BTW, there is a case of a Church that fired a women when they found they she was a (satan worshiper? pagan?, not sure which). The courts decided that the firing was wrongful and forced the church to re-hire her. There is precedent for this case (my foggy memory notwithstanding).
Rich
Rich, suppose that I were an employer who was both an atheist and a vegetarian, and that I forbade my employees from eating pork on the premises. Suppose that I was both an atheist and a firm believer in the family, and that I refused to hire employees who had been divorced. Suppose that I was both an atheist and an anti-materialist, and that I required all employees to donate half their paychecks to charity.
Now I think you’d agree that unless employees could demonstrate that their religions required them to eat pork, get divorced, or not give money to charity, they’d have to follow my directives or quit. I, the employer, am not at all religious so my policies are based on my personal beliefs, not any religious system.
Now imagine a religious employer, one who believes that eating pork is sinful, divorce leads straight to Hell, and material possessions distract us from the spiritual.
What you’re suggesting is that this employer shouldn’t be able to establish the same policies as the atheist.
Rich — it is only a constitutional issue if she works for the government.
The First Amendment doesn’t apply here. As an example, your employer could legally fire you for something you posted on a website from your home during the weekend if he so desired, without offending your First Amendment rights in the least.
As long as it was a stated policy, it does not seem unreasonable. Besides, nothing says that Catholics MUST eat bacon for religious purposes.
A few years ago – I believe it was in the vicinity of Daytona Beach, Florida – a conservative (orthodox?) Jewish pharmacist, who was working at one of the chain pharmacies, sued his employer. It seems that on religious grounds, he objected to the presence of condoms on the premises. Either he or the condoms had to go (guess which). But it went to trial, and the jury was having none of it.