Muslims Fired Over Clothing

[brokenandtwisted]

Muslims fired over long skirts, tribunal told

Women say garb posed no risk in UPS delivery plant
Sep 09, 2008 04:30 AM

Nadifo Yusuf lost her job scanning and flipping boxes at the UPS package delivery plant near Jane St. because she refused to hike up her long skirt to her knees, a Canadian Human Rights tribunal has heard.

When Yusuf was hired as a temporary worker on Aug. 27, 2003, she was told not to wear loose clothing, jewellery or hair extensions that could get caught in machinery.

cont'd (http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/495688)

So you think their dismissal was just? I personally think safety comes before religion...

[celtic friend]

http://i18.tinypic.com/86gwjma.jpg

[celtic friend]

Ohhh!! Sorry wrong picture, I swear.

[brokenandtwisted]

Ohhh!! Sorry wrong picture, I swear.

Uh what?

Are you intentionally trolling, or is this Republican retard-ism?

[Just my luck sucks]

I agree safety comes first.

Qualifier: I am pro-management, anti-union and believe all workers should just do what they are PAID to do in a safe, adult and responsible manner. Otherwise find a new job.

I also feel as a business owner (not me, but those that are) have every right to discriminate based on "looks" if someone dressed in our office in a Burkha, that would put off our clientèle and management should have the right to determine to whom we cater. It won't be the worker.

[brokenandtwisted]

I agree safety comes first.

Qualifier: I am pro-management, anti-union and believe all workers should just do what they are PAID to do in a safe, adult and responsible manner. Otherwise find a new job.

I also feel as a business owner (not me, but those that are) have every right to discriminate based on "looks" if someone dressed in our office in a Burkha, that would put off our clientèle and management should have the right to determine to whom we cater. It won't be the worker.

Yeah I agree but the issue at hand is the fact that they were working there years before they were fired, and their attire never changed.

I think it's a mix of poor management and passive discrimination, although they never should have been hired to begin with.

[Just my luck sucks]

But, the article indicated that their manner of complying with the safety code did change when they were unionized. That prior to going union, they hiked their skirts, once union, they no longer wanted to comply with that rule.

I'd fire them too.

They'll bring about a union grievance, and when that fails they will bring in the NLRB on some trumped up "violated my rights to union activities on the job." The company will then likely roll over, as cost of litigation will exceed any possible fines etc.

Fast forward--the company will continue to face this, and like issues at least weekly from here on out--then the workers will wonder why management hates unions/won't cut workers any slack.

People, step away from the entitlement mentality--just shut the fuck up and do the job you are paid to do. Otherwise get the hell out and go find other work.

[brokenandtwisted]

But, the article indicated that their manner of complying with the safety code did change when they were unionized. That prior to going union, they hiked their skirts, once union, they no longer wanted to comply with that rule.

I'd fire them too.

They'll bring about a union grievance, and when that fails they will bring in the NLRB on some trumped up "violated my rights to union activities on the job." The company will then likely roll over, as cost of litigation will exceed any possible fines etc.

Fast forward--the company will continue to face this, and like issues at least weekly from here on out--then the workers will wonder why management hates unions.

People, step away from the entitlement mentality--just shut the fuck up and do the job you are paid to do. Otherwise get the hell out and go find other work.

I disagree...it may be seen as a sense of entitlement...but to some people, religion is their life. You can't simply trot on that right.

The defense in this situation will arguably go with constructive discrimination:


Constructive discrimination

11. (1) A right of a person under Part I is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground but that results in the exclusion, restriction or preference of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and of whom the person is a member, except where,

(a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances; or

(b) it is declared in this Act, other than in section 17, that to discriminate because of such ground is not an infringement of a right. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 11 (1).

That seems reasonable, but the double idem (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h19_e.htm#BK13) will fuck them over (defense) in the end.

Religion and Human Rights

Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, discrimination because of religion (creed) is against the law. Everyone should have access to the same opportunities and benefits, and be treated with equal dignity and respect, regardless of their religion.

Religion includes the practices, beliefs and observances that are part of a faith or religion. It does not include personal moral, ethical or political views. Nor does it include religions that promote violence or hate towards others, or that violate criminal law.

Protection against discrimination applies in the following areas:

* Employment, including job applications, interviews, employment benefits, working conditions, and promotions;
* Housing, including rental housing, hotels, commercial properties, and buying or selling a house;
* Services, goods and facilities, including education, hospitals and health services, stores and restaurants, government programs, and public places and facilities;
* Contracts, such as for buying or selling goods or services;
* Unions, professional associations, and other vocational associations.

It doesn't matter whether or not discrimination is intentional: it is the effect of the behaviour that is important.

Where a rule conflicts with religious requirements, there is a duty to ensure that individuals are able to observe their religion, unless this would cause undue hardship because of cost, or health and safety reasons. Unlawful discrimination because of religion can include:

* Refusing to make an exception to dress codes to recognize religious dress requirements;
* Refusing to allow individuals to observe periods of prayer at particular times during the day;
* Refusing to permit individuals to take time off to observe a religious holiday.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/religious_rights

The bold is what is relative to this case...the companies, regardless of becoming unionized (as stated in the Commission) must cater to these religious needs and are arguably in the wrong. If they were concerned for the women's safety they should never had hired them to begin with, which would have been constructive criticism. The biggest mistake was really hiring them to begin with. They were there for two years and nothing happened to them - and I'm certain there would have been an office job for these women instead of working on the floor/line...

[HijabiGirl]

Hmmmm tough call. I used to load trucks at UPS but this was before my conversion and I wore overalls. They were very loose fitting though to allow for comfort and manuverability. There are loose fitting trousers she could've worn and still maintained the rules of hijab so I don't get why she just didn't do that.

It is possible to wear a long skirt and perform your job safely at UPS, at least in the job discription that she filled. (sounds like a sorter to me) If she wore a skirt for 5 years and they didn't have a problem with it, why the fuss now?

[Athena]

I'm going to have to go with Just My Luck Sucks, here. If you work for a company, you either comply with their policy, or you find work that better suits your requirements. An employer should not be forced to accommodate religion.

[brokenandtwisted]

I'm going to have to go with Just My Luck Sucks, here. If you work for a company, you either comply with their policy, or you find work that better suits your requirements. An employer should not be forced to accommodate religion.

But they have to. This is what liberty does to a country, Athena.

(Yeah, I said it!)

[Morbid]

But they have to.

Not if it creates undo hardship for the employer they don't.


11(2). The Commission, the board of inquiry or a court shall not
find that a requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and
bona fide in the circumstances unless it is satisfied that the
needs of the group of which the person is a member cannot be
accommodated without undue hardship on the person
responsible for accommodating those needs, considering the
cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety
requirements, if any.

[Athena]

But they have to. This is what liberty does to a country, Athena.

(Yeah, I said it!)

No, they really don't...Not in the U.S., at least. An employer cannot actively discriminate based on religion, but that's not what happened, here. These women were asked to comply with an established policy and they refused. They should absolutely be fired on those grounds, as this particular brand of insubordination poses a liability to the company.

[Morbid]

No, they really don't...Not in the U.S., at least.

Same in Canada. The portion I quoted in the post above yours is from the Ontario Human Rights Commission

[Athena]

Ah. Good lookin' out.

[brokenandtwisted]

Of course. But the catch is it doesn't in this case, and religion cannot possibly cause undue hardship to an employer if there's alternative work. If they were dismissed prior, it would have been constructive discrimination - they could not worked on the basis of the work required. There was no alternative work mentioned to them, and it's unknown if there was a bona fide occupational requirement - they did not give specific attire to the women to wear. They stated no loose clothing...which is reasonable, but the woman altered their garments, and worked for two years without criticism. Going to go with what you posted as well:

Idem (2)(3):


11. (2) The Commission, the Tribunal or a court shall not find that a requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances unless it is satisfied that the needs of the group of which the person is a member cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those needs, considering the cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements, if any. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 11 (2); 1994, c. 27, s. 65 (1); 2002, c. 18, Sched. C, s. 2 (1).


11. (3) The Commission, the Tribunal or a court shall consider any standards prescribed by the regulations for assessing what is undue hardship. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 11 (3); 1994, c. 27, s. 65 (2); 2002, c. 18, Sched. C, s. 2 (2).


No, they really don't...Not in the U.S., at least. An employer cannot actively discriminate based on religion, but that's not what happened, here. These women were asked to comply with an established policy and they refused. They should absolutely be fired on those grounds, as this particular brand of insubordination poses a liability to the company.

Liability, yeah...but they altered their garments and stayed within the company for two years. Nothing happened in two years, and they were suddenly (albeit randomly) dismissed? Why hadn't the company complained before then? Mid-calf is practically knee-length for God's sake, save for a few inches. :doh:

[Morbid]

Of course. But the catch is it doesn't in this case, and religion cannot possibly cause undue hardship to an employer if there's alternative work.

There was also the safety specification specifically mentioned in the document. Company's enforce polices that have been dormant all the time for a myriad of reasons, not all of the soaked in religious discrimination.

[Athena]

Of course. But the catch is it doesn't in this case, and religion cannot possibly cause undue hardship to an employer if there's alternative work. If they were dismissed prior, it would have been constructive discrimination - they could not worked on the basis of the work required. There was no alternative work mentioned to them, and it's unknown if there was a bona fide occupational requirement - they did not give specific attire to the women to wear. They stated no loose clothing...which is reasonable, but the woman altered their garments, and worked for two years without criticism.

Liability, yeah...but they altered their garments and stayed within the company for two years. Nothing happened in two years, and they were suddenly (albeit randomly) dismissed? Why hadn't the company complained before then? Mid-calf is practically knee-length for God's sake, save for a few inches. :doh:

I don't know about the alternative work requirement. If I hire employee Y for position X, but the employee refuses to conform to the requirements for that position, I shouldn't be forced to offer that employee another job just because one is available. But I'm not familiar with any of that.

As far as the two-years thing goes, any number of things could cause an employee to suddenly face more scrutiny. Being employed by a company that employs a number of temps, I can tell you that they are treated with less scrutiny than directly employed individuals. We occasionally hire our temps, at which point they are subject to things they didn't have to deal with as temps. That seems to be what happened here. Other things can create scrutiny seemingly out of nowhere, like audits or changes in management.

At the end of the day, the company provided these women with a choice - they could either hike their skirts up another couple of inches, or they could be let go. These women made their choice.

[Pete Bondurant]

They should have fired them simply for being Muslim. I fully support this policy. DO NOT QUESTION IT!

[Gilbrit]

The women chose to work for UPS.
No one forced them.
Comply within the rules of a full time employee or leave.

These select women wanted it both ways and lost.

[Morbid]

Ultimately, the worse things these women have done, is to ensure that future employers do not hire Muslim women.

[brokenandtwisted]

More...

Worker hiked skirt to be safer at work

Refusal to go above knee cost Muslim her job at UPS, tribunal told

Sep 10, 2008 04:30 AM

Temporary worker Nadifo Yusuf hiked up her skirt to mid-calf over her long pants and tucked in her hijab and neck scarf to be "more safe and secure" when climbing an 18-foot ladder to flip heavy boxes on a conveyor belt at the United Parcel Service plant, she told a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

"I'm a Canadian. I know how to prepare for work," she told the panel before tribunal member Karen Jensen yesterday.

The hearing, expected to run 10 days, is all about skirt length.

After almost two years of flipping boxes at the UPS plant, Yusuf, 35, a devout Muslim, and mother of six, lost her job at the plant on July 13, 2005, because she refused to hike her skirt up above the knee over her long pants. Seven other Muslim women also lost their jobs at the UPS plant for refusing to raise their skirts up over their long pants.

The eight Muslim women who filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission allege that UPS discriminated against them on the basis of their religion and their gender.

At stake is how long or how short a skirt should be for safety reasons, if a worker has the job of flipping heavy boxes, which could weigh 75 pounds, and where arriving at her work station at the UPS plant involves climbing open metal staircases and steep ladders, some 6 metres high.

Yusuf began her first job in the business world in Aug. 27, 2003. She was hired as a temporary worker by Spherion Staffing Solutions, a temporary placement agency, and sent to the UPS hub at Steeles Ave W. and Jane St. She was told not to wear loose clothing, jewellery or artificial hair extensions.

While they worked as temps, the women were not prevented by UPS from wearing long skirts, according to an agreed statement of facts.

But by April 2005, when her temporary position flipping packages was unionized due to a collective bargaining agreement and became a full-time UPS job, she was told if she wanted the job her long skirt "was a health and safety concern and contrary to the UPS clothing and footwear policy," according to an agreed statement of facts.

Yusuf told the panel she was given an option by her supervisor: "pull up your skirt above your knee or you are out of work."

"I thought he was harassing me," she told the panel, as she sat garbed in a black hijab and neck scarf, and a long skirt worn over pants.

But UPS lawyer Derek Rogers suggested that perhaps she didn't understand the safety implications behind wearing a longer skirt.

Yusuf told the panel she offered to wear her skirt at mid-calf, over her pants, even though she said her leg shape is not permitted to show.

She said she "tried to negotiate" with her supervisor over skirt length.

"But he refused."

The hearing continues.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/496394

[WryBread]

A person who wants to live according to their religion needs to seek out a job that doesn't violate their beliefs. It's their responsibility, not the employer's.

[HijabiGirl]

A person who wants to live according to their religion needs to seek out a job that doesn't violate their beliefs. It's their responsibility, not the employer's.

I gotta agree with you there, 100%.

[crickett]

One could easily hike the gown up to the knees but have pants on. Their legs would still be well covered.
When I started school (billion years ago) girls were NOT allowed to wear pants to school. Well, it was frequently 20 degrees or less (farenheidt) in the winter. We had a compromise system. WE would wear pants UNDER the skirt. Once at school we could either take the pants off or leave them on under the skirt.
Now, while I believe that the rule was really stupid, nonetheless it was the protocol so we followed it. And there was not even a safety issue at hand.
It is utterly absurd for an employee to expect a company to allow them to dress and act in an unsafe manner. Personally, I am always pleased when a company takes safety issues seriously.
So, get over it and dress for safety!

[crickett]

Yup