Girl Fired for refusing to wear pants is suing burger king

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**hotsauceman1**

A Texas teenager is suing Burger King for religious discrimination, saying that the fast food giant fired her, a conservative Christian, for wearing a long skirt, rather than uniform pants, to work.

Related: Fast food employees dish about items you should never order

Ashanti McShan was a 17-year-old high school senior when she applied for a job as a cashier at the Grand Prairie Burger King in August 2010, according to the lawsuit filed on her behalf this week by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. During her interview McShan, who is a Pentacostal Christian, said that her religious beliefs forbid women to wear men's clothing, so she would need to be able to wear a long black skirt rather than the standard-issue uniform pants. The Burger King employee interviewing her "assured her that she could wear a skirt to work," the lawsuit says.

But when she arrived for orientation, another store management told her that she could not wear a skirt "and that she had to leave the store," in spite of her explaining that there was a religious issue at stake, according to the lawsuit.

"The result of the foregoing practices has been to deprive Ashanti McShan of equal employment opportunities because of her religious beliefs and observances as a Christian Pentecostal," the lawsuit states. The incident could be a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars religious discrimination in the workplace.

Related: Teaching kids about discrimination

"I've seen cases where an employer has denied a religion accommodation, and it's something where you could see how it could cause a problem," Equal Employment Opportunity Commission trial attorney Meaghan Shepard, who is representing McShan, told The Dallas Morning News. "The legal standard is 'undue hardship,' and in this instance it was a very simple request -- to be able to wear a long black skirt and not black pants -- and it was initially granted. And then she shows up at orientation, on time, and is then told by the manager to leave and that she couldn't wear a skirt. She was responsible, tried to get in touch with someone higher in the franchise, and they never responded to her. In our eyes, it was so clear-cut. She's a very sweet, articulate young lady who was just trying to work her senior year in high school."

The lawsuit seeks "appropriate back pay with prejudgement interest" for McShan, even though she was asked to leave the store before she started her first shift, as well as punitive damages and an injunction.

"Accommodating Ms. McShan's religious beliefs would have been simple and cost the company nothing," Shepard said in a statement. "Management's failure to comply with federal law deprived this teenage girl of the opportunity to work during her senior year of high school."

Pentacostal Christians believe in a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible. Deuteronomy 22:5 specifically states: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

"We haven't come far enough in our respect of religious liberties at the workplace if we have employers saying that uniform policies trump a religious observance without articulation of any hardship posed by letting an employee 'hold the pickles' and 'hold the lettuce' while wearing a skirt," EEOC regional attorney Robert A. Canino said in a statement.

The franchisee that owns the Great Prairie Burger King, Fries Restaurant Management LLC, also owns about 10 other Burger King restaurants in Texas; they would not comment to Yahoo! Shine. "As a normal course of business, Burger King Corp. does not comment on personnel or legal matters related to its franchisees, who independently own and operate Burger King restaurants," Burger King Corp. told The Huffington Post in a statement.

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/christian-woman-fired-burger-king-refusing-wear-pants-175600700.html

I work with burgers and hot grease, And i have to wear pants, if a fire started or my hair fell, causing contamination it would be disaterous.
Skirts are not an appropriate thing to wear while in a kitchen.

**BlapBlapBlap**

Thing is, the interviewer probably didn't know a damn about kitchen safety. Skirts get caught on things, are far easier to lose track of than trousers, sweep along the floor, and are far easier to burn. You should never be wearing a full-length skirt in a kitchen environment, and regular skirts are still best avoided. The manager acted with the girl's and her colleagues health and safety in mind, rather than religious beliefs.

**fire4effekt**

Except she applied for a Cashier job. And how are you determining the flowy-ness of said religous skirt?

**Palindrome**

Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?

**BlapBlapBlap**

The article quotes that 'she would need to be able to wear a long black skirt rather than the standard-issue uniform pants.'. Long skirts flow. And a cashier at a Burger King still has plenty of interaction with the food, and the skirt will pick up more waste and filth on the floor.

**Seaward**

Palindrome wrote:
Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?

It's a story because conservative Christians have decided it's a story.

**dogma**

Wait, pants are now exclusively masculine clothing? Does she consider a bra a top?

**Testify**

I can't help but feel this story would get a lot more interest if there were pictures of the 17 year old girl in question, wearing the skirt.

**azazel the cat**

BlapBlapBlap wrote:Thing is, the interviewer probably didn't know a damn about kitchen safety. Skirts get caught on things, are far easier to lose track of than trousers, sweep along the floor, and are far easier to burn. You should never be wearing a full-length skirt in a kitchen environment, and regular skirts are still best avoided. The manager acted with the girl's and her colleagues health and safety in mind, rather than religious beliefs.

I'm sure baby Jesus would have protect her from grease fires.

Yeah, this is not a story.

**Howard A Treesong**

Palindrome wrote:
Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?

If you are discriminated against in your workplace you have a right to complain. The problem here is that she's trying to claim that trousers are men clothing, even though women everywhere wear trousers on a regular basis and they are tailored for women. It's a pretty big stretch to claim you are being religiously discriminated against.

As to why such a non-story enters the press, it's because some christian group has probably taken on her case to fund the suit and in particular bring publicity. In the UK, high profile cases such as the Nurse asked not to wear her crucifix necklace on duty, the foster parents who refused to tell gay kids in their care that homosexuality was acceptable and the B&B owners who wouldn't take bookings from gay people were all publicised and had their legal action supported by the same conservative group; the Christian Legal Centre.

There are people with an agenda behind these promoting these cases, if you look hard enough.

**Kid_Kyoto**

Palindrome wrote:
Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?

Because companies cannot have hiring policies that prevent people from practicing their religion (barring health and safety concerns).

Company policy might stop me from wearing a baseball cap but it cannot prevent Jews, Shiks, Mulims etc fromcovering their heads. If not companies would basically banning certain religions from working there.

This case will come down to whether or not BK could have made a reasonable accomodation and since it seems they did not try I'd bet they'll lose big.

**purplefood**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Palindrome wrote:
Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?

Because companies cannot have hiring policies that prevent people from practicing their religion (barring health and safety concerns).

Company policy might stop me from wearing a baseball cap but it cannot prevent Jews, Shiks, Mulims etc fromcovering their heads. If not companies would basically banning certain religions from working there.

This case will come down to whether or not BK could have made a reasonable accomodation and since it seems they did not try I'd bet they'll lose big.

I know they can't discriminate in the UK but AFAIK worker's rights in the US are next to non-existent...

**Kid_Kyoto**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Palindrome wrote:
Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?

If you are discriminated against in your workplace you have a right to complain. The problem here is that she's trying to claim that trousers are men clothing, even though women everywhere wear trousers on a regular basis and they are tailored for women.

But its not the role of government or Burger King to dictate how any religion should be practiced. Her faith says no trousers, only long skirts. Priests and lay people can debate that but the fact remains her belief and if the company can make a reasonable accommodation its required to by law whether we agree with her interpretation or not.

**Ouze**

I think Burger King is probably going to settle before this ever see s a jury, since it's likely in their best interest to do so. As a cashier, I think it's likely they should have accommodated her. As a cook or something else, I'm not sure really.

**scarletsquig**

Wow, the bible has some crazy stuff in it.

Every woman who has ever worn pants is an Abomination in the eyes of the Lord?

Well, nice knowing you, 95% of the female population, all going to hell.

Same goes for men wearing tight stockings as treatment for their Deep Vein Thrombosis. And of course, basically all TV/TS/crossdresser/drag queen/Scottish as well.

**Melissia**

dogma wrote:
Wait, pants are now exclusively masculine clothing?

I think I can hear Virginia Woolf spinning in her grave.

**purplefood**

Melissia wrote:
dogma wrote:
Wait, pants are now exclusively masculine clothing?
I think I can hear Virginia Woolf spinning in her grave.

You must be pretty close to Virginia Woolf's grave to hear that...

**Melissia**

No, it's over in Sussex IIRC.

**purplefood**

Good hearing then...

**Melissia**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_in_one's_grave

I dunno if the American idiom got carried over to you:

**4oursword**

I think he was being sarcastic?

**Melissia**

He wasn't very clever if that was his intent

**Howard A Treesong**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Palindrome wrote:
Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?

If you are discriminated against in your workplace you have a right to complain. The problem here is that she's trying to claim that trousers are men clothing, even though women everywhere wear trousers on a regular basis and they are tailored for women.

But its not the role of government or Burger King to dictate how any religion should be practiced. Her faith says no trousers, only long skirts. Priests and lay people can debate that but the fact remains her belief and if the company can make a reasonable accommodation its required to by law whether we agree with her interpretation or not.

Where do you draw the line with that though? No doubt there are some very strange ideas from niche religious groups, do they have to be accommodated to? When do you decide that one demand is genuinely religious, and another is just their personal whim being dressed up?

**purplefood**

Melissia wrote:
He wasn't very clever if that was his intent

Or you missed it

**Palindrome**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Because companies cannot have hiring policies that prevent people from practicing their religion (barring health and safety concerns).

Case closed m' lud.

**Ahtman**

Palindrome wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Because companies cannot have hiring policies that prevent people from practicing their religion (barring health and safety concerns).

Case closed m' lud.

It has to be a reasonable concern, and I'm not sure how wearing a skirt creates such a scenario. It doesn't help that there are women (and some men, no need to not be inclusive here) that wear skirts while working at fast food restaurants as well as establishments that serve food as well. Add that to the hiring officer telling her it was ok and I think there is a good chance of a settlement on the way.

**LuciusAR**

It's not discrimination to be asked to obey the same rules as every other employee. If your place of work has a not skirt or no necklace rule in place, it's probably got in place for a damn good reason. If you don't like it then feel free to find another job. Religious belief is not license to break the rules.

**Ahtman**

LuciusAR wrote:
It's not discrimination to be asked to obey the same rules as every other employee.

Of course it can be. You can create a wide range of completely illegal rules in the work place to discriminate against other folks. Company policy doesn't get to violate peoples civil rights just by virtue of being company policy.

**CT GAMER**

scarletsquig wrote:

Every woman who has ever worn pants is an Abomination in the eyes of the Lord?

**purplefood**

Why do they have galleries of Sarah Palin photos?
What kind of websites have you been visiting CT?