A Muslim flight attendant has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow her to sue her former airline employer for forcing her to serve alcohol against her religious convictions. Is her pursuit of accommodation reasonable or justified?
Muslim Flight Attendant Asks U.S. Supreme Court For Help
The flight attendant is not asking the Supreme Court to answer my title question. Instead, as View from the Wing notes, she is asking:
- Does the Railway Labor Act, which governs airline-union relations and requires that disputes go to arbitration, trump the right to sue in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
- Does requiring an airline to re-open a union contract constitute an undue hardship that would exempt them from making a religious accommodation for a flight attendant over serving alcohol?
Allow me to translate that for you: should she be allowed to sue or does the law forbid it? Furthermore, can an airline argue that it should be spared from laws mandating religious accommodation if it requires renegotiating a signed union contract?
The flight attendant explains that her former airline, ExpressJet, did initially provide accommodation. But after a flight attendant complained that this arrangement constituted an unreasonable additional work burden on her, ExpressJet yanked the accommodation. It told the flight attendant that the collective bargaining agreement ratified by its flight attendants prohibited this. After the flight attendant continued to demand religious accommodation, she was placed on unpaid leave.
ExpressJet prevailed in the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, prompting the request for the Supreme Court to examine the issue. The Supreme Court may choose to accept the case or decline, which would effectively leave in place the decision of the Sixth Circuit.
Again, the Supreme Court would not answer the question I posed in the title. Instead, it would balance the tension between federal discrimination law and federal labor law, ultimately ruling if the flight attendant could litigate her case in a federal district court.
But let’s get to the issue itself.
Is Such Flight Attendant Religious Accommodation Justified?
On the surface, her claim seems absurd, doesn’t it? She presumably knew what she was signing up for in being a flight attendant and if she didn’t, that’s her problem. A flight attendant not serving alcohol is like a barber refusing to cut hair on religious grounds, right?
Not so fast.
I think the answer to my title question is ultimately no. In the same vein, a county clerk cannot simply refuse to issue marriage licenses for couples that violate her religious convictions by entering into civil marriage.
However, I see religious accommodation as a great positive in the United States, not negative. Let’s look at this way: is there a way that a flight attendant can avoid serving alcohol and still pull her weight?
If two flight attendants work their way down an aisle serving drinks, is it too much work for the other flight attendant to pour and serve all requests for alcohol? The Muslim flight attendant could collect all the trash, resulting in a net neutral distribution of labor (or perhaps even more work for the Muslim if no one ordered alcohol).
The issue is not so much reasonable expectations as much as the nexus between a sincerely-held religious belief and its impact upon the operation of the business. Should a pharmacist be forced to dispense abortifacients or a hospital nurse be forced to assist in IVF treatment if it violates their religious beliefs? U.S. courts have held no, especially if others are available to perform that role.
Just like a pharmacist’s primary job is not to dispense the “morning after” pill, but to dispense and advise on a wide range of drugs, so too a flight attendant’s job is not simply to serve drinks, but to provide safety and stability in case of an emergency as well as comfort onboard.
I realize that accommodation would not work in all cases (and that every analogy breaks down at some point). If a flight attendant is working on a smaller regional jet that staffs only one flight attendant, there is no way to avoid serving alcohol. In that case, reasonable accommodation becomes impossible.
But as a person of faith, I do think reasonable accommodation is often possible without subjecting co-workers or the public to an unfair burden or the imposition of morality.
CONCLUSION
I strongly doubt the flight attendant will be granted writ from the Supreme Court. I also understand I am likely in the slim minority camp when it comes to this issue. I do think certain religious accommodation requests are simply absurd. But I’m not sure this is one of them…
What are your thoughts on this issue? Should a Muslim flight attendant be forced to serve alcohol (or pork)? I consulted with a pair of devout Muslim friends. Both told me that Islam forbids not only drinking alcohol, but serving it, hence the issue.
image: KLM
This is an interesting one that hits close to home. I live in a place with lots of Muslim refugees. Most of them are taxi drivers or work in retail. Many years ago, airport taxi drivers started to refuse taking passengers that had duty free bags with liquor (you usually can see through the plastic bags). Also, women working at Target, Walmart, etc.. were refusing to touch any type or pork at checkout. Well, that didn’t last too long. I guess both the taxi company and retailers told them to cut that off otherwise they wouldn’t have a job. I understand their culture does not allow them to consume those items but not touching it through a glass or plastic bag seems to be a bit too much.
It is indeed a struggle, especially when more fringe faith groups (outside the Abrahamic faiths) ask for accommodation in a way that is facially burdensome and also not sort of well-known, like the fact that Islam and alcohol don’t mix.
Also, speaking specifically for the case of refugees, I am all for people to try to maintain their culture but only to a certain point. You are welcomed to a new country as you were fleeing yours so you better adapt to the culture of the country that is receiving you. No, I am not saying they need to drink alcohol or eat pork but not serving it is way too much.
Exactly.. So my mom owns a private christian school.. My nephew was to old and had to do 5th grade in public school since my moms school stopped at the 4th grade.. Well he got in trouble one day because he had his bible in his back pack.. He brought it out just to get other books out and got sent to office until my sister in law came and got the bible.. BUT if you are Muslim you get a safe prayer spot in the school.. You get to step out for a minute.. separate religion and state only applies to Christians in America.. Because in America now the biggest crying victim wins.. We fought the school and got an apology but they still get to pray and we can’t have a bible still.. It’s pathetic and we are still fighting it until either its equal or there prayer spot is gone.. Period..
David, people don’t get in trouble for having a bible. Did you sue the school? They have no right to deny a bible from your nephew’s backpack.
How are christians so disenfranchised? “In God we trust” adorns everything, even though that was added nearly 150 years after the formation of our nation. How about the native Americans whose cultures and religions no longer exist due to the forced assimilation asserted by christian Americans. Or, how about the 600 years worth of genocide that christians brought to the new world, effectively bringing about the extinction of some of the greatest cultures in the Americas. Heres a nifty fact, more people in the world speak Latin (a dead language) than there are native Qechua speakers left after the introduction of Christianity to the Americas.
Be aware of your history.
If they are in England abide by the rules not there cultures my husband has worked 30 years ain Muslim country’s and abided by there rules they treat expats and and woman badleyas second class citizens
If the individual applies for a job knowing alcohol is involved, he/she had no right to use religion to not preform his/her duties. I was a flight attendant for 12 and a half years and knew what I had to do when I applied. If religion is used to avoid certain areas, she shouldn’t be working with males either( other than her husband , brother or father) and the list can go on….keep religion out of the workplace !!!
Yes, Islam and alchol do not mix….so do not take a job where they will. Except when the Arabs go to London, England and partake in the pleasures of the Western world…which I have seen first hand. This flight attendant shpould not be allowed into a court of law. BTW , my grandfather paid for and built a mosque.
Amen.
She needs to find another job or position with the carrier. She knew going in that is part of the job description. F/A schedules are awarded by seniority bases, she may not be able to hold a position on a larger aircraft with more F/As to pick up her slack. Next she will require the airline to let her pull out her carpet and pray at dusk onboard.
At the end of the day it all comes down to this: She’s a muslim in a country of different culture. She’s free to believe in whatever she wants, but religion should not be a get-out-of-jail-free card for things based on the local culture. She should know better, and no one should bend unwillingly to her requests based on a foreign culture. If the employer comes forth and helps her – that’s of his good own will, we’re all human after all. But he shouldn’t be forced to do so just because she says her religion says so. In essence it would almost sound like invasion.
Matthew, you think it is fair labor that one FA pours and then serves drinks to up to 100 passengers while the religious one just comes by to collect trash? That is insane. No union would allow such a thing, and if it were forced upon a company legally, all airlines will stop alcohol service.
I’m talking about pouring alcohol, not all soft drinks.
But Islam Islam IS an Abrahamic religion. What other religions are you referring to? I know no other religions that make as many demands + special exemptions than Islam. But am eager to know if there are any that come anywhere near in their demands on the rest of us. Btw they only have to place a bottle of alcohol on a tray + pass it to the customer. They are not drinking or even touching the alcohol. Likewise with pork.
?
I said Islam is an Abrahamic religion.
Why would she. She not drinking. She Forbidden to drink it not to serve it
Shock, horror, airline serves alcohol or maybe ham sandwiches to customers. I know, I’ll apply for a job there and then whine about it.
I actually don’t think this makes a difference in the analysis, but she converted after she took the job.
That’s interesting, and makes it even more ridiculous.
You are 200% correct. I am shocked that Mathew is playing the devil,s advocate on something like this.
Absolutely this is the problem when we go to another country we obey their customs and rules but when they come to our country they want to change our laws and rules she knew what the job involved when she took it after all x
I agree with you Matthew, but you did mention the FA worked for ExpressJet. Until recently when they got E175s, ExpressJet only operated E135s and 145s for United Express, and these flights only had one FA. What would happen if she were the sole FA on an E145 and there’s not another FA to split the work with?
Hi Tom, I mentioned that in the story – the exemption just cannot work on a ERJ-135/145.
Stop feckin about, it’s your job, you elected to do it, so get on with it.
I think this places an unburdened to the airline. In addition to the issue of an aircraft that only requires one FA. What if another FA informs the airline that they also cannot serve alcohol? Now, crew scheduling needs to ensure the two FAs do not work together on a 2 FA flight. In an IROP event where the two FAs are best suited to work a flight, would the airline have to run a “dry” flight?
I also take her at her word that this is a sincere religious conviction. But I think she needs to find a new job in the airline or leave the job.
All reasonable questions.
Islam does not permit photographs of their revered founder and also of humans in the home. You can have pictures of trees, birds mountains etc. Yet everyone who is a Muslim and travels internationally has a passport which bears their photographs. Do they object to this? No. Time and time again Muslims use their faith prohibitions in jobs they knowingly applied for, then scream discrimination. The flight attendant can change to be a ground crew at check in. Emirates and Qatar Airlines serve alcohol and none of the cabin crew objects.
Great points, and I think you indirectly bring up another excellent point: If an airline is now scheduling crews based on religious convictions, they’ve now opened themselves up to a litany of other lawsuits based on religious discrimination. It’s a slipper slope of who gets special dispensation and who doesn’t. If a Jewish or Christian FA now refuses to fly on Saturday or Sunday, respectively, does that hold the same amount of legal weight as a Muslim FA refusing to serve pork/alcohol. Where do we draw the line?
Or better yet, does an Evangelical have to work with LGBTQ flight crew?
what about ham sandwiches?
Matthew, your question is one that I answer for a living. This is what I’m paid to do for Accenture. My opinion is the same as yours, and it is perfectly reasonable accommodation for her to not be staffed on a regional jet by herself as long as:
•The Airline is able to accommodate such a request without undo hardship, and
•Such an accommodation must allow her to continue to be paid full time, and consequently, to work a full time role, unless she is willing to drop to part time status.
I would need more facts here, such as whether or not she could work with a colleague on all flights with the airline. For a major airline, this accommodation seems like an absolute no-brainer, of course it could be accommodated, no problem whatsoever. But I’m not quite so sure on ExpressJet.
I personally want to accommodate her. My gut says that her request is more than reasonable, but please enlighten me. Does ExpressJet have airplanes that allow her to work with a colleague, and if so, is it reasonable and practical for her to be restricted to those assignments while still allowing her full time work? I’ll also ask you another follow up question. If the answer to my question is no, and you were the one in this position, would you be willing to drop to part time status in order to be properly accommodated?
How can you make a reasonable accommodation? So you have two FAs, they go through first with food, each handling a section of the aircraft. Then they do the same for drinks. Now every time someone asks for an alcoholic drink, which will be probably on average one every row depending on time of flight, she’s supposed to go back to the other FA, interupt her work, have her maneuver around the cart and serve the passenger, only to probably do it again the next row? Nonsense. Not operationally possible, and impacts greatly the level of service to customers, who are the ones who ultimately suffer the consequences of this so called victim’s newfound “rights”(as well as co-workers)Serving alcohol is integral to the job, unless it’s a completely dry airline.
Alan, I disagree with you about if it were a major airline, she could be accommodated. Trips at major airlines are all based on seniority. It is unfair for a FA to get bypassed certain flights so another can do less work. I think there would be a lot of conversions in the airline industry.
Alan, I wanted to have a more general discussion in this post, but concerning this case specifically, the FA flew for ExpressJet, which is now out of business. For a time they had only 50-seat jets which were staffed by one flight attendant. More recently, they obtained two-cabin jets. In the CNN story I linked to above in my story there is some more background information. Apparently she was just fine until what appears to be a bigoted colleague complained about her being lazy and that she had a book with “foreign writing” in it (obviously, the Quran). Her issue seems moot at this point and is more about retroactively suing, but I am more interested in a broader discussion on accommodation today. We agree on trying to find reasonable accommodation and I think that can be done without making her colleagues work harder.
Some people just don’t understand, or like, the concept of freedom. They seek only to impose their will on others through coercion instead of through mutual agreement. She has a right to believe she shouldn’t serve alcohol, but she does not have the right to force the airline to create a special FA job for her with fewer responsibilities and equal pay. She does, however, have the right to go find a new career more in line with her beliefs. Given that this is long after the fact and the former FA has obviously moved on in life, it’s a pure money grab victimhood play, probably funded by advocacy groups. Equal rights means no special rights, but obviously equal rights is no longer the goal.
@WR2, actually, you are wrong. The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) of 1990 has something else to say.
All people should be able to do their job with a reasonable accommodation. The question here isn’t whether or not she should be allowed to request such an accommodation. I am visually impaired, should that mean that I can’t do my job if I need my company to pay for screen reading tools so I can do it? Otherwise I am qualified, and I believe that I am entitled to those accommodations in order to successfully perform my role, and the law agrees with me in this case. While her situation is different, as long as her request is reasonable, the law is on her side too.
@WR2: So do you think a hospital nurse can be compelled to assist in an abortion against her conscience or lose her job? Should a cake maker be forced to render artistic expression to any form of speech she might find objectionable? Freedom is not a one-way street.
Freedom is not a one-way street. Correct. But certain jobs have certain requirements and certain corporations have certain rules they can impose on employees, within federal guidelines. There are certain policies at my job I do not totally agree with on a personal (not religious) basis, but I do not feel that my “freedoms” are being imposed upon. I accept those policies in order to make a living, I do NOT adhere to those policies on my own time.
For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!
I thought the religious issue in this case is about a prohibition on consuming alcohol. The flight attendant is not being asked to consume alcohol, only to serve it to the passengers as part of her job. In most planes she would be handing unopened bottles of alcohol to passengers, so she wouldn’t be having to come in contact with any alcohol.
Relating to this, was she also refusing to pick up the trash after the meal/beverage service because there might be alcohol in it?
I think we should all be able to practice our religion without interference by the state. But I don’t think that means we can impose our belief and practices on others.
Come on enough of this. You are hired to do a job…do it. If we cater to every whim then what do we have left. It is unfair to the rest of the crew to exempt one crew member from performing a service. Are we then going to allow crew members that may be physically unable to perform their duties in an emergency evacuation of an aircraft to fly?
If it’s part of the job, it’s part of the job. The only possible mitigating circumstance would be if that part of the job was initiated after she was hired, which is obviously not the case. Using the argument that people should not have to deal with – not consume – items that their religion disallows, I presume that she would likewise refuse to serve anything that contained pork. Then you could have Christians who follow the bible refusing to serve or eat pork since it is absolutely forbidden. Where does it end? Religion is vital to many people and it should be kept between them, their spiritual leader, and their deity (if applicable). It’s too important to parade in front of other people as that just cheapens it.
Interesting issues and several issues.
The unspoken issue is the title issue, should a Muslim be allowed to shirk duty because of religion. Although not an ADA disability issue, that gives guidance that in a larger plane, not a ERJ145, there are other FA who potentially are not Muslim. It’s not just alcohol but ham, non-halal food, coffee (in some religions), etc. Also how about prostitution in the Netherlands. Should Dutch airline FA be required to have sex with first class passengers? It really boils down to practicality. All parties should give and take. The Muslim FA in a larger plane should be allowed to ask not to serve alcoholic beverages and the colleagues should try to help.
The legal issues are if the Railroad Act or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 takes priority. That I am not certain. Off the top of my head, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seems like a more broad law but that is just opinion. Off the top of my head, if the employee wants to use the Railroad Act, the employer should be able to defeat that by saying that in the most favorable light, the employer chooses the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Matthew, ideas?
As for the lawsuit opening up the contract to renegotiation, this would be subject to great abuse. One union wants a raise, they just find a Muslim and that forces voiding the contract and opening it up to renegotiation. A strong no.
I would be interested in reading the legal issues more than the practical issues. Specifically how people feel about 2 competing laws and which to use. There must be some sort of previous legal case where this was an issue.
You’ll have to elaborate on the Dutch FA question. I don’t get that equivalency at all.
I believe KLM cabin crew is unionized under the flight attendant union, not the sex worker one. Also, “having sex with a passenger” is not part of the FA’s job description, because it is not safety related.
I think the Supremes will punt on this and either kick back and say you have a contract method of settling disputes. In the larger picture, reasonable accommodation for things like pregnancy, disabilities (temporary or permanent) etc are mostly settled law. The strategy on trying to carve out special exemptions is maddening, especially as it creeps into the medical services (pharma/ dr/ nurse/ technicians, etc) arena. It will not be long before a cashier at my local grocery says, “I’m not ringing up condoms because I do not believe in artificial family planning,” or “I’m not ringing up alcohol sales because I think drinking alcohol is a sin and goes against my religious beliefs.” The continued intrusion of religious dogma/ rules into daily life is complicated. On the one hand, we’d all be better offer if we collectively “did unto others as we want done to ourselves,” or “love thy neighbor,” and on and on. And if your belief says no alcohol, great, I support that and as someone else pointed out, the FA is not being asked to consume alcohol. I’m guessing there might be some recovering alcoholics working as FAs that are doing their job, fighting (bless them!) their personal demons, and are performing their full job, even if they think we’d be better off without alcohol. If I did not believe in guns, I probably would not apply for a job (in the USA) to be a police officer. I might look for other roles within the police department to serve my community, but if core requirement to being a sworn officer is to carry a firearm, then I need to consider other jobs. If I started out as an FA with one faith and later to converted to another faith that didn’t all alcohol, I’d need to seriously consider other options because I changed, not the job requirements. It’s interesting that the FA is not concerned about other restrictions of her faith such as not being in the company of men that are not immediate family members or her husband. I respect that these are tough, personal choices, but the application of these choices should be limited on how they are applied to others.
” In most planes she would be handing unopened bottles of alcohol to passengers, so she wouldn’t be having to come in contact with any alcohol”
No. The airline crew has to serve alcohol beverages opened. They cannot serve an alcoholic drink unopened. Quoted from the Southwest drink menu.
Are you kidding? Don’t sign up for a job if you don’t agree with what the job description is. That is unless your intention from early on was a lawsuit…
In such cases, the plaintiff has an obligation to propose a reasonable accommodation, then the burden shifts to the employer to show that the proposed accommodation created an undue hardship on the employer. So what did the plaintiff propose as a solution?
On a side note, a reasonable accommodation is one that is provided by the employer and not the other employees. If job duties can be rebalanced so that the overall workload per person does not change, that could be reasonable. But if the request is that “I want employee X to do my work that I don’t want to do,” then that is not considered reasonable because it’s not X’s legal obligation to provide the accommodation. This issue also get challenging when dealing with disabilities if an employer requires cross training and job rotations as essential functions of the job, for instance in manufacturing, in order to cut down on repetitive motion injuries.
So it will be the legal burden of the employee to show that there is another way for the airline to serve the drinks without her involvement, or to move to an open position for job that the employee is otherwise able to perform. And there don’t seem to be a lot of open positions in the airlines at this point in time.
InLA, you made it the most clear! You said it is the employer who makes the accommodation, not the other employees. Thank you! As I am in the industry, I now have a great comeback!
I guess my question is, given the need for accomodation, given a plentiful supply of labor why would an airline inconvenience itself by hiring a person who won’t serve alcohol (or a pharmacy a pharmacist who won’t fill a rx for an abortion pill).
If they are going to ask for religious accomodation, the airline should be within their right to decline and simply fire them and hire someone who doesn’t require such accommodation.
Thanks for the discussion Matt. Just as an FYI, the prohibition of alcohol in Islam is a bit stricter than other prohibitions. We are told for alcohol to “Leave it aside”. Scholars interpreted this as to completely avoid being near it. This would of course include its consumption, but also its serving, or even sitting at the same table as someone consuming it. For us, it is better to completely avoid it.
For pork for example, we are not to eat it, but there is not the stricter prohibition of completely avoiding it (such as for serving).
From my understanding, Muslim FAs know the requirements of the job, including potentially serving alcohol, before application, and might themselves be OK with this and still seek out the job. This particular incident, as you suggested, she converted to Islam, and was aware of the requirements later on. In this particular case, it seems she might have sought an alternative agreement with her company, or tried to find an alternative position. I guess it is up to the court to decide if the employer did enough to find an alternative.
In her personal life, the flight attendant has the right to believe and worship as she sees fit. In her professional life, the employer has the right to ask the flight attendant to perform the job as described.
This employee is trying to force her personal religious beliefs on her employer and on her fellow employees. Her beliefs are, literally, none of their business.
All employees must be treated equally. If you make accommodations for one employee’s personal religious beliefs, you must make accommodations for all employees’ personal religious beliefs. Since beliefs differ widely, it would be impossible to accommodate them all.
This is beyond ludicrous. You can choose to follow any religion you want. But if youre religion is more important to you than the job role you were hired for, please look for another job. Next you will have Hindu flight attendants refusing to serve beef.
I wonder how Muslim flight attendants on Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Oman Air and Turkish handle this?
🙂
If they take a job, sign a contract and it explicity states they will serve alcohol with the airline, then they have an obligation. In other words, take responsibility for your own actions. Otherwise, get out.
It begs this question: If I am a non-Moslem, flying on a Dry Moslem airline ( eg; Saudia, Egypt Air ) then I should be able to drink alcohol. Even if I know beforehand it is a dry airline.
With the logic that a moslem stewardess can not serve alcohol, then I should rightly be able to drink alcohol on a dry airline.
But oh, no, no, that would never happen.
How can you sue your employer for asking you to do your job? If your job no longer fits with your newfound religion, then you are free to find another line of work are you not? Bit strange to ask the job to bend to you rather than the other way around.
Why in the world should a private company have to re-open a binding contract if it was negotiated in good faith by both parties – the airline and teh flight attendants union, the recognized bargaining unit? The muslim flight attendant applied for the job, passed the training program and agreed to the terms of the contract; only after she was in the air did her “convictions” kick in? Unlikely. Either this is a deliberate provocation to impose her worldview on a private company or a truly naive attempt to impose a practice or belief well after the fact of her taking the job in full knowledge of what the job entailed. Regardless, she is drinking the alcohol, she is just serving it and there is no prohibition in the Koran to that.
There are numerous issues that go along with providing an accommodation in this case.
First as noted that the company operates single FA equipment where no accommodation is present.
Second is scheduling. What aircraft she flies on, who she flies with and often what position she holds on the aircraft (F1 working First or F2 working coach with assistance from F1) are determined by her monthly bid. The rules for that apply to everyone and if you start blocking her from be assigned places where she would have to serve alcohol (like F1 on a multi attendant aircraft or being assigned to single attendant aircraft) then you are violating the contractual rights of the rest of the FA population. Because your almost certainly going to have someone senior to her whose awards are altered by the need to accommodate her.
Third what happens when two Muslim FA’s get assigned the same flight? You have to remember that even if she could bid to avoid this schedule disruptions frequently alter crew assignments. If the airline can’t find a non Muslim FA to work with her it might be forced to cancel the flight. Or if they operate it but with alcohol not being served as a result this could violate their contract with the parent airline and/or the rights of customers whose ticket was supposed to include alcohol because of the cabin of service or status.
Consider too that there are some flights where you have a much higher than normal percentage of customers who are consuming alcohol and may want refills. If you exempt her from having to assist with this it possibly places an undue burden on the remaining FA.
Let’s look at one possible example. Many FA’s don’t like to be the F1 with the responsibility of working first even though it may pay a little more. So the senior FA on the trip has bid to work the F2 position which means our FA in question is assigned F1 and gets the additional pay. But her accommodation is in place so now everytime a customer in F wants alcohol
The F2 has to drop what she is doing and come forward to serve the drink. Imagine that this is on a longer flight from a vacation destination where the customers in F are having multiple drinks. So now the F2 is essentially being forced to work a position she bid to avoid and not even getting the extra pay that goes with it.
When you look at all the issues her accommodation has the potential to create I just don’t see it as viable.
I’m an FA who recently converted to Pastafarianism – the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (glory be upon him).
My new religion specifically forbids me from serving food or drink while airborne, therefore I intend to spend the majority of every flight sitting in the galley playing Candy Crush on my phone while other FAs attend to pax, If the airline expects me to do otherwise, I shall of course sue them.
As a devout Pastafarian I don’t just expect your respect, I demand it!
Key word: sincere.
… Well put. Where does one draw the line?
The FA converted religions after being hired. Her moral convictions changed after she was hired and thus, she tried to change the terms of the employment contract (including serving pork, beef, alcohol and other taboo items). She does not deserve any special treatment.
Im far from been a racist as my husband is black but that is just ridiculous. Shes not been asked to drink it! Religious or not 90% of small shops out of the town centres in my area are owned & run by Muslims & they all sell alcohol.
So could a vegan, with a sincerely held belief that exploiting animals is wrong, refuse to serve almost everything on the menu?
” You want coffee? No problem. You want that with milk? Sorry I need to get my colleague to get that for you.”
I think simply find a different job, you want a whole company to bend to the whims of a person because they want to do that job specifically despite what it entails. There are tons of other jobs that dont require someone to serve alcohol and I’m assuming their are Muslim based airlines which dont serve alcohol that they can work for. I’m not gonna force someone to do something against their beliefs but forcing an employer to change how they do things so you can have the job you want is basically being selfish. You made a life choice and there are things you are just gonna have to give up when you make those life choices. No one can have it all. Besides a religious bakery had to sell to a gay a marriage cake, something of religious importance in their belief. So I dont see why someone cant be forced to poor alcohol for their job
If serving alcohol is against your beliefs, what apply for that job.
Simple – don’t employ muslims
I don’t think the muslim flight attendant has any right to be excluded.
I being an orthodox Jew have turned down many jobs and business opportunities in my lifetime in order to avoid being involved in the sale or distribution of non-kosher items which goes against Jewish law.
ExpressJet is out of business…. It’s not the point, but can she sue a dissolved company?
That’s one of the questions in the lawsuit.
In that case should we not refuse to give them alcohol licensing, for many Muslims that do to sell alcohol, in shops, restaurants, bars and clubs. You can not have it one way and not the other. Maybe pick a different career that does not interfere with your cultural beliefs.
I no more think that she should be exempt from serving alcohol than I think a bartender should be exempt. It’s a fundamental part of the job. If she can’t or won’t do that job, find a job that doesn’t have a basic requirement to serve alcohol.
I work with plenty of muslim flight attendants who seem to manage to perform their jobs. I work with plenty of Christian flight attendants who don’t drink for religious purposes (and I used to be one of them), but they manage to perform their job duties.
Thats fine providing a Christian flight attendant could refuse to serve halal prepared meals if it was considered contrary to their religious beliefs.
But it’s not. 1 Corinthians 10:23–24
Are you serious defending this retard? You’re pathetic. I’m a vegetarian so I’m gonna refuse serving or selling sandwiches containing meat okay???? Or I’ll sue you for discrimination!!!!!!
if that is part of the job description when you apply for the role and, is in the contract as a stipulation of your job description. (And it would be an expected activity within the regular job scope).
You should 100% have to carry out the task.
Otherwise you have signed a contract you are now in breach off. Or signed with this intent to not carry out the assigned parameters which would possibly fall into you being counter sued for fraud or misrepresentation.