Comments on: EEOC settlement: pork-handling exemption, prayer breaks for Muslim workers

By: Rachel Maddow takes issue with Bush administration plans for new 'right of conscience' rule that would allow more workers to refuse more procedures. Does her logic apply to non-Christians? | WinkyDog

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:53:46 +0000

[…] Muslim meat packers that demanded pork-handling exemptions and prayer breaks. here […]

By: Pork-handling and religious accommodation, cont’d

Pork-handling and religious accommodation, cont’d — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:14:44 +0000

[…] Hasanali Khoja, a Muslim chef employed by London’s Metropolitan Police as a catering manager, has filed a discrimination claim after being asked to prepare breakfasts with pork sausages and bacon, saying he had been assured he would not have to handle the meat products. (David Barrett, “Muslim police chef claims religious discrimination over sausage and bacon breakfasts”, Telegraph, Nov. 2). The Minnesota meat-packing case discussed earlier is here. […]

By: JP

JP — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:54:08 +0000

John,

Thanks — I’m not sure how I missed the reference to the number of class members in the EEOC press release. 40 – 80 is slightly smaller number than I expected. Also, I’m guessing the variance is so big because many of the class members were applicants through the employment agency that weren’t hired because they indicated they would not handle pork. There is a good possibility many of them won’t be found.

Also, as I read the release, the added break is for all employees — it’s just timed to coincide with muslim prayers.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:25:30 +0000

A few things:

The company is a chicken processor that occasionally handles pork. Pork products are not its primary business. I’ve not found anything to explain when or why or how often it processes pork, but that is not its main line of business.

The EEOC reports says the number of employees who will share out the monetary award is ‘between 40 and 80’. I assume this is because some employees are claiming particular kinds of damage.

Adding an extra break for prayer by Muslims should be accompanied by an additional 5-10 minute break for non-Muslims during the workday. If not, then there is indeed ‘preference’ being shown toward one religion.

Christmas holidays are defined by law or contract most of the time. The laws take no account of the religion of the worker in requiring holiday bonus pay. Many non-Christians take advantage of this and put in to work on Christmas to get the extra pay. Not surprisingly, non-Muslims in Muslim-majority countries do the same for Islamic holidays.

By: z0l0ft

z0l0ft — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:14:30 +0000

So, does this mean that the Muslim workers can be asked to work straight through Christmas holiday? I understand that there would be extra considerations for supervising them, keeping the plant open, etc. but if you are so religious as to demand daily breaks, than why should you also enjoy the days off that Christian holidays allow?

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:42:13 +0000

The breaks do not strike me as an “extra benefit”, as long as this is not new time off, but rather a division or structuring of the break they are already required to receive. From the EEOC press release: Under the decree preliminarily approved in the Gold’n Plump case, the employer will add a paid break during the second half of each shift which -- in addition to a break early in the shift and lunch breaks otherwise required by applicable law -- will accommodate the religious beliefs of Muslim employees who wish to pray during the course of the work day.

By: JP

JP — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:31:27 +0000

The significance of the monetary part of this settlement is hard to evaluate without knowing the number of class members. This number is notably absent from the EEOC press release. I’m guessing it’s a pretty big number, and they get only a few thousand each from this settlement.

Religious accommodation caselaw is fairly employer friendly (especially compared to disability accommodation cases). An accommodation is not required if it imposes more than a de minimis burden. I think it’s reasonable to assume that pork-handling is only an uncommon occurrence at this poultry processing facility.

This means that 1) plaintiffs may well have prevailed; and 2) the non-monetary settlement doesn’t really have much impact on defendants.

By: AZFlyer

AZFlyer — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:02:33 +0000

Obviously, the meat packing plant handles pork products as well as chicken. What I don’t get about this ruling is where the line is drawn. If the job involves handling both pork and chicken products, does the employee’s religous affiliation force the employer to hire someone who cannot perform all of the functions of the job? What would happen if a vegetarian Buddhist were to apply?

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:26:22 +0000

As a matter of curiosity, why does the handling of pork arise at a poultry plant? Is there some new “pig chicken” that I haven’t heard about?

By: EarlW

EarlW — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:48:48 +0000

I wonder if I could use the same logic to withhold taxes from the government. I have a moral objection to supporting people who do not work and business that are not profitable.