Did you see the new stand-alone Chick-fil-a they're opening up across 45 from the Baybrook? It's in the parking lot with the new Lowes. Should be open by Christmas.
Cool! I haven't eaten there in months. A-Train, the Bourbon Chicken in Baybrook Mall is YUMMY as well! I like both.
I can't stop laughing at this analogy. I'll leave it to some 3rd grader or some bored individual to tear this one apart...
I'll bet he looses. Texas being an employ at will state, they technically can fire him for any reason, unless their policies state otherwise. An exempt employee has less rights though, so if he was a manager (as it hints), tough luck. It does state he was training for a position, so I wonder if he had even passed his probationary period. The only way Chick-fil-a could be in trouble is if they told him they were firing him for that reson -- and he'd have a good civil rights violation case. I doubt any company would be that stupid though. The part about Chick-fil-a 'refusing to pay for medical bills and expenses while enrolled in their benefit plan,' makes it sound like more is going on. There wouldn't be any reason for them to refuse medical expenses if he had the benefits -- that's what insurance is for. And what 'expenses' would fall under a benefit program for a trainee? Strange. It will be interesting to see Chick-fil-a's response. In certain circumstances, companies actually can restrict employment based on factors that would otherwise be considered discrimination. The restriction has to be based on some core mission, obvious, and they must be very careful about enforcing it. For example, Hooters can hire waitresses based on physical appearance. Schools with religious affiliations (Such as Baylor or SMU) can place limits based on religion. Chick-fil-a has always represented the Sunday closing as a part of it's mission, but I don't know that they've really pushed the "Christian" image as a part of it's core mission -- and I don't believe they make this clear or enforce it in employment. It's questionable that you could even argue religion as being a core aspect of a fast food chain. I wonder if they will try this?
I think using a computer would be pretty much an "essential job function" for a computer programmer, and you could be fired. The ADA even states you can exclude a disabled person from employment if they can't perform an "essential job function." You are right on with the job requirements part. It will be interesting to see if they argue it is a job requirement.
I bet he loses too...but not for the same reasons you assert. Yes, we're a right to work state...no, that does not mean you can fire someone for their religious preference. They don't have to outright tell him they're firing him for that reason to raise it to that level, either. If a jury believes that's why he was fired, they've lost. Further...you can fire someone with a disability, for example, if that disability keeps them from performing the very nature of the work...you can be fired (or not hired) based on certain qualities that otherwise you could not be fired for if it is shown that those qualities are integral to the job being performed...I think it would be very difficult to argue that accepting Jesus as the Son of God and praying to Him are integral to the service of fast food chicken. As for Baylor/SMU...totally different...they're religious entities in and of themselves as well as being private colleges. Not treated the same as consumer-driven for-profit organizations.
MadMax said what I was thinking pretty well. Just one thing to add: Some seem to believe that, so long as a business is private, it's entitled to do anything it wants without restraint. Why is this? The regulation of government over private property has been a tradition since... well, since private property was established in the Anglo-American tradition. Originally in England, estates actually belonged to the King, and nobles were merely given possessory interest. We're a long way from feudalism, of course... but there has never been a time when private control of property was absolute. If the legislature wishes to restrain someone in an unfair usage of private property... then that's appropriate unless it violates the Constitution.
Being black isn't an action, it is a state of being. Didn't you have to learn about the state of being verb in HS. To be, it is a very important idea, but a far cry from an action.
Yes. No one needs to tell anyone else how to spend their own money. Would you be okay with a requirement that you buy soul food 15% of the time, Chinese food 10%, etc. That is rediculous, yet we don't allow private employers to have discriminatory hiring practices. If they are truely hiring inferior personnel on the basis of skin color then they should fail. They would probably fail even were this not the case due to humongous boycotts. I just think we legislate too much of what people are allowed to do, even when we are only trying to protect them from there own stupidity. I happen to feel that minorities are perfectly qualified to get jobs without the government mandating that a company must hire them.
You are right, but if they didn't tell him it was for religious reasons, the fact that we are an employ at will state (not right to work ) puts the burden back on him. Maybe he could convince a jury, but I'll bet there's enough evidence on the side of the employer to suggest otherwise. The ADA arguement is really a separate issue, although it falls under the same act. Baylor at least (I'm more familliar with them) is a college with a regious affiliation and mission. They are able to bring religion into the hiring equation because it is 'integral to their mission.' Word Publishing, I believe, is a company that also falls into the category of a company that uses religion as a key component of it's overall mission. No, it isn't necessary to be a Christian to teach students or publish books, but it's a part of their mission. At the other end of the spectrum is Hooters, which openly hires waitresses on the basis of their looks. No, you don't have to be a busty female hottie to serve food, but since it's a part of their 'mission', they can do it. I agree though, that it's a weak argument to say that that religion is an essential part of serving food. (I apologize if I wasn't clear on that. ) They could make the arguement that it's a part of their mission, but I don't think they've ever stated it strongly enough to make that case. If they told him they were firing him for religion, this could be their only option. Reading between the lines, it sounds as if there were other problems with this employee. I bet the story will sound a lot different when we hear Chick'fil'a's side. It may be a case of bad timing for the company.
Exactly...I think it's far more likely that he's using this as some form of retribution for what he deems to be unfair treatment. Whether or not it really was unfair treatment is a question I don't have the answer to yet, because there aren't enough facts yet for me to tell that. But again, I really sincerely doubt the guy was told, "pray to jesus or be fired!"
For your company's sake StupidMoniker, I hope you are not in a position of management that may have hiring privileges. If you are you should check out this site and learn how to prepare a position statement responding to a charge of discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/ After that your company should prepare to back the Brink's truck up to someone's trunk.
After my psych test today I'm going to go and buy up so much Chick-fil-A that my stomach will burst! I love chicken sammiches and waffle fries.
ignoring the actual topic of this thread.... chick-fil-a is the ****! we have one on campus and i eat there religiously (hmmm.......). it is expensive, but thats why i have a meal plan. my only complaint is that they dont have their sweet iced tea. that stuff is AWESOME. greatest iced tea around.
"they put an addictive chemical in their chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly!!" "the world is full of carpets...and one day, we will clean them."
Although I am not in a position to hire or fire people, why would my being so lead to a discrimination suit based on my position in this thread?
But... but... I'm not talking about affirmative action! I'm talking about *outlawing active discrimination in hiring practices*, which I had assumed most civilised people actually *agreed* with. You're looking at this from the business's point of view. What about all those poor minorities who won't get hired or will get hired for the crappy jobs no one else applies for? (I mean, it's hardly as if this doesn't happen now, obviously, but at least there's some redress if it's actually *proved* to happen). You know, I bet some of these businesses would actually do *well*, despite your argument that they'd be drummed out of town. They'd have a nice little niche market already organised for them - Klan members and dumbf*cks, and if there aren't a lot of the former, there certainly are a lot of the latter. Historically, *business* did fine before all these things were outlawed, you know. It was *people* who got screwed. Another question: under your 'we shouldn't legislate this stuff' argument, would you be fine with internal segregation too, if some private businesses insisted on it? Different office water coolers for Hispanics and African-Americans and women and white guys, because some crazy-ass business owner thinks it'll be more 'clean' or something? Where do you draw the legislation line?
If my boss told me I would have to pray to Jesus Christ to keep my job, I would happily sue the hell out of her and our employer.
