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.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/british-airways-employee-wins-landmark-legal-fight-over-right-to-wear-cross-at-work-8451855.html

The summary:

An ex-British Airways employee's right to wear a cross was upheld. It happened in 2006. BA had made a change to their uniform regs in 2007 and she returned to work there.

A nurse's right to wear a cross was denied on grounds of health and safety.

Two other people lost their cases about performance of job duties. One was a sex counsellor, another was a registrar. They had refused to handle cases of same sex couples.

The ruling seemed sensible to me. The right to religious expression was maintained providing it doesn't form a genuine risk (a hanging cross is an infection control nightmare) and it prevents the discriminsation of, in this case, homosexuals on religious grounds.

Doubtless there will be some rabblerousing from the usual suspects but in reality this is a sensible and workable ruling.

In the case of the guy working for relate, who offer support for couples, i can see why the case was ruled against..

In the US, employers are required to make a reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs and expressions. While the word "reasonable" obviously means different things to different people (especially with our increasingly-stupid population), a dangling cross - or a dangling anything - would not be acceptable in several industries.

I personally wouldn't include nursing as one of them, though, unless the hospital bans all jewelry completely - watches, wedding ring, the whole nine - along with neckties for men (although those are already on the way out after an article about what an infection vector they were several years ago).

These rulings seem reasonable.

Though in defense of British Airways when I was working flight crew I could only wear a watch for safety reasons. Slightly different circumstance though.

 Ouze wrote:
In the US, employers are required to make a reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs and expressions. While the word "reasonable" obviously means different things to different people (especially with our increasingly-stupid population), a dangling cross - or a dangling anything - would not be acceptable in several industries.

I personally wouldn't include nursing as one of them, though, unless the hospital bans all jewelry completely - watches, wedding ring, the whole nine - along with neckties for men (although those are already on the way out after an article about what an infection vector they were several years ago).

Pretty much on the money here.

Do sihk doctors wear that bangle thing and is that covered by such legislation?

 Ouze wrote:

I personally wouldn't include nursing as one of them, though, unless the hospital bans all jewelry completely - watches, wedding ring, the whole nine - along with neckties for men (although those are already on the way out after an article about what an infection vector they were several years ago).

Nurses and others with personal contact with patients can wear a plain wedding ring and thats about it, basically anything that is likely to be a reservoir of infection has been removed from clinical dress, Doctors don't even wear white coats anymore. Certainly something which is in contact with the wearers skin, isn't likely to be steralised and could realtively easily touch the patient is a massive infection control risk. In this case I believe that the nurse was told that she could pin the cross to her uniform so frankly I see no reason why this ever went to court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spyral wrote:
Do sihk doctors wear that bangle thing and is that covered by such legislation?

I doubt it as infection control guidelines, and the law, covers all religions.

 Spyral wrote:
Do sihk doctors wear that bangle thing and is that covered by such legislation?

Sihk doctors aren't allowed in the hospital. They stay home until they get better.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
Sihk doctors aren't allowed in the hospital. They stay home until they get better.

Well done.

Could she wear the necklace if she kept it under her shirt maybe? Not to keep it hidden specifically, but to keep it from dangling, possibly touching patients and becoming an infection vector?

I agree with the ruling.

Now make it fair.

1. If the cross on a nurse is banned, enforce the ban on bling-bling.

2. If Christians cant refuse to provide same sex marriage guidance. Moslems shouldnt be allowed to refuse to serve alcohol.

 Orlanth wrote:
2. If Christians cant refuse to provide same sex marriage guidance. Moslems shouldnt be allowed to refuse to serve alcohol.

I've never understood that. I think only the most extreme variants of Islam hold that handling alcohol is a sin, and, this is US-centric, but that's no longer a reasonable accomodation, depending on the venue.

 Orlanth wrote:
2. If Christians cant refuse to provide same sex marriage guidance. Moslems shouldnt be allowed to refuse to serve alcohol.

Is there an instance of an Muslim employee refusing to serve alcohol as part of their job (as a bartender, or airline steward or something like that)?

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
2. If Christians cant refuse to provide same sex marriage guidance. Moslems shouldnt be allowed to refuse to serve alcohol.

Is there an instance of an Muslim employee refusing to serve alcohol as part of their job (as a bartender, or airline steward or something like that)?

Yup... can't remember where... if I can't sleep anytime soon, I'll go hunting for it. It's just not widely reported...

What about that lady in Florida who refused to remove her veil for the driver's license picture?

 rubiksnoob wrote:

 Spyral wrote:
Do sihk doctors wear that bangle thing and is that covered by such legislation?

Sihk doctors aren't allowed in the hospital. They stay home until they get better.

Great work.

@Spyral: The bracelets are below gloves and scrubs. I doubt they are much of an issue.
I know a few guys that have worked in clean rooms wearing them without incident.

 whembly wrote:
Yup... can't remember where... if I can't sleep anytime soon, I'll go hunting for it. It's just not widely reported...

I could only find an instance of a supermarket that chose to put in place a policy where Muslim staff could call another staff member over if a customer were buying alcohol. Which is really just fine, if for whatever reason the supermarket wants to make that its policy, then that's their business.

It is only an issue when the business requires of the employee something it requires of every other employee, but the employee will not do for religious reasons. Then you've got an issue of where 'reasonable accomodation' begins and ends.

What about that lady in Florida who refused to remove her veil for the driver's license picture?

I don't know about the Florida case, but we've had a similar case here in Australia. Well, two actually. In the first the issue was resolved by the woman agreeing to go to a police station, where a female officer would view her. In the second the woman made all kinds of allegations of racial abuse and manhandling after she refused to reveal her face, all of which the police dashboard camera showed to be complete lies.

I believe, but am not certain, that it is now policy here in WA that if a woman doesn't want to show her face then she can follow the officer to a police station and reveal her face to a police woman. It's a bit ridiculous, but the timewasting is mostly on the Muslim lady, so whatever.

 Ouze wrote:

I've never understood that. I think only the most extreme variants of Islam hold that handling alcohol is a sin, and, this is US-centric, but that's no longer a reasonable accomodation, depending on the venue.

Well, there is an explicit prohibition in the Sunan ibn Majah, which is one of the six major hadith collection in Sunni Islam. Of course, that prohibition also names it "sinful" to utilize money from the sale of alcohol, which any employee of a given store that stocks alcohol is most certainly doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yup... can't remember where... if I can't sleep anytime soon, I'll go hunting for it. It's just not widely reported...

I could only find an instance of a supermarket that chose to put in place a policy where Muslim staff could call another staff member over if a customer were buying alcohol. Which is really just fine, if for whatever reason the supermarket wants to make that its policy, then that's their business.

It is only an issue when the business requires of the employee something it requires of every other employee, but the employee will not do for religious reasons. Then you've got an issue of where 'reasonable accomodation' begins and ends.

I also saw one about a Muslim woman refusing to sell wine to a customer because she was with her 17 year old daughter. That made me chuckle because that was standard policy in many Illinois grocery and package stores for years.

 dogma wrote:
I also saw one about a Muslim woman refusing to sell wine to a customer because she was with her 17 year old daughter. That made me chuckle because that was standard policy in many Illinois grocery and package stores for years.

It's also kind of funny because over here you still can't sell alcohol from a grocery store. You have to make a second stop at a store that sells nothing but grog and way over priced mixers.

 sebster wrote:

 dogma wrote:
I also saw one about a Muslim woman refusing to sell wine to a customer because she was with her 17 year old daughter. That made me chuckle because that was standard policy in many Illinois grocery and package stores for years.

It's also kind of funny because over here you still can't sell alcohol from a grocery store. You have to make a second stop at a store that sells nothing but grog and way over priced mixers.

It's state to state here. Arizona it's one stop booze topia, there's even my favorite thing ever. Drive through booze stores. Colorado you can only pick up 3% beer and cooking wine, but there's always a liquor store in the same plaza any way.

The court can only examine the cases brought before it.

It seems likely that by similarity, if a muslim barman refused to serve alcohol, and took the case up to the court, he would get the same kind of ruling, however, we shall have to wait until such a case comes up.

The rulings seem sensible enough. Its a step on the road to a secular society and I am happy with that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The court can only examine the cases brought before it.

It seems likely that by similarity, if a muslim barman refused to serve alcohol, and took the case up to the court, he would get the same kind of ruling, however, we shall have to wait until such a case comes up.

Thing is you can fire someone that refuses to do or is unable to do the job they are hired for. If you are hired as a barman to serve alcohol then you can be fired if you cannot do the job. There is a difference when you fire someone who could do a job and someone who can never do a job but claimed they could, that is misrepresentation, similar to lying on your CV. If I have a man working as a window washer who is in an accident and is wheelchair bound for the rest of his life I can fire him as he can no longer climb a ladder. Whereas if I fired someone who became wheelchair bound in an office job I could be sued into the ground.

Also there is the right to refuse service.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yup... can't remember where... if I can't sleep anytime soon, I'll go hunting for it. It's just not widely reported...

I could only find an instance of a supermarket that chose to put in place a policy where Muslim staff could call another staff member over if a customer were buying alcohol. Which is really just fine, if for whatever reason the supermarket wants to make that its policy, then that's their business.

It is only an issue when the business requires of the employee something it requires of every other employee, but the employee will not do for religious reasons. Then you've got an issue of where 'reasonable accomodation' begins and ends.

Opening a can-o-worms here, but some Pharmacist refuses to fill birth-control pills too...

I remember certain Jewish people refuses to work (friday night till sat night?) that cause some issues... but, those usually work themselves at the that establishments.

What about that lady in Florida who refused to remove her veil for the driver's license picture?

I don't know about the Florida case, but we've had a similar case here in Australia. Well, two actually. In the first the issue was resolved by the woman agreeing to go to a police station, where a female officer would view her. In the second the woman made all kinds of allegations of racial abuse and manhandling after she refused to reveal her face, all of which the police dashboard camera showed to be complete lies.

I believe, but am not certain, that it is now policy here in WA that if a woman doesn't want to show her face then she can follow the officer to a police station and reveal her face to a police woman. It's a bit ridiculous, but the timewasting is mostly on the Muslim lady, so whatever.

whembly wrote:
Opening a can-o-worms here, but some Pharmacist refuses to fill birth-control pills too...

I remember certain Jewish people refuses to work (friday night till sat night?) that cause some issues... but, those usually work themselves at the that establishments.

Yes, and those Pharmacists are wrong. If they don't want to take birth control pills, then nobody is making them. But they do not have the right to force their beliefs on others.

And not working on Shabbos is not really any different than not working on Sunday mornings to go to church. Neither requires the employee to be paid for the day they don't work.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
Opening a can-o-worms here, but some Pharmacist refuses to fill birth-control pills too...

I remember certain Jewish people refuses to work (friday night till sat night?) that cause some issues... but, those usually work themselves at the that establishments.

Yes, and those Pharmacists are wrong. If they don't want to take birth control pills, then nobody is making them. But they do not have the right to force their beliefs on others.

See? Can-o-worms.

Sebster was asking for some examples... that's all.

And not working on Shabbos is not really any different than not working on Sunday mornings to go to church. Neither requires the employee to be paid for the day they don't work.

Right... but they do cause workforce "strains"... but, like I said those issues are usually resolved at the place of business.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The court can only examine the cases brought before it.

It seems likely that by similarity, if a muslim barman refused to serve alcohol, and took the case up to the court, he would get the same kind of ruling, however, we shall have to wait until such a case comes up.

Thing is you can fire someone that refuses to do or is unable to do the job they are hired for. If you are hired as a barman to serve alcohol then you can be fired if you cannot do the job. There is a difference when you fire someone who could do a job and someone who can never do a job but claimed they could, that is misrepresentation, similar to lying on your CV. If I have a man working as a window washer who is in an accident and is wheelchair bound for the rest of his life I can fire him as he can no longer climb a ladder. Whereas if I fired someone who became wheelchair bound in an office job I could be sued into the ground.

Also there is the right to refuse service.

What I meant was that the muslim would most likely be told as the Relate counsellor was that he couldn't refuse to do part of his job on the grounds of religious conscience.

In all these cases the rights of all parties have to be considered.

If someone refuses to follow the rules of their job or refuse to serve customers because of their religion then it's time for them to get a new job.

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
And not working on Shabbos is not really any different than not working on Sunday mornings to go to church. Neither requires the employee to be paid for the day they don't work.

Right... but they do cause workforce "strains"... but, like I said those issues are usually resolved at the place of business.

I'll concede that.

 whembly wrote:
Opening a can-o-worms here, but some Pharmacist refuses to fill birth-control pills too...

Refusing to fill birth control is an interesting one. I mean, I think clearly if an employee refuses to fill it his boss has the right to fire him for refusing to perform part of his job.

But with that issue the bigger can of worms is when it's the owner of the business who doesn't want to fill prescriptions. Does he have the right to pick and choose what medicine he offers to the public? Or is that once you open your doors to the public then you lose some of the right to pick and choose what services you'll offer and to whom? Or can a business owner sell whatever he likes, to whoever he likes?

Now that is ridiculous... but, hey... if she wants to do that, that's on her.

It's absolutely ridiculous. Probably about as ridiculous as refusing to sell birth control