Muslim bus driver's discrimination lawsuit against MTA continues, even after driver's death...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Last I checked, the 1st Amendment allows for "Freedom of Expression". No law or regulation is above the Constitution.

Yes, "freedom of expression", and "at will"... Like I said, no one forced her to work for the . She was given a list of the rules and if she didn't agree with them, she was free to walk.  I don't see why the should have to bend over backwards for her.  

[bobtehpanda]

Yes, "freedom of expression", and "at will"... Like I said, no one forced her to work for the . She was given a list of the rules and if she didn't agree with them, she was free to walk.  I don't see why the should have to bend over backwards for her.  

 

The thing is, the article states that a headscarf without the MTA logo was not a problem for the 13 years that she worked prior to the issue being raised. If it wasn't considered necessary for 13 years, why would it be a problem now, and why would they only notify her after she took medical leave?

 

It's very odd; I would say that many, if not the majority of B/Os do not wear any sort of hat with a logo on it, and you can see very clearly in photos provided that she wears the rest of the MTA uniform. If most B/Os don't even have a head covering on, let alone one with the MTA logo, why would she all of a sudden be required to wear one? It's holding her to a higher standard because of her religion, which is something that is certainly not okay.

 

Note that the US DOJ successfully filed a class-action lawsuit against the MTA regarding this policy and got a settlement where the MTA agreed that its dress code during that time period was discriminatory and dropped the logos on headscarfs and turbans requirement. The only reason she didn't settle was because she also filed suit for improper firing.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The thing is, the article states that a headscarf without the MTA logo was not a problem for the 13 years that she worked prior to the issue being raised. If it wasn't considered necessary for 13 years, why would it be a problem now, and why would they only notify her after she took medical leave?

 

It's very odd; I would say that many, if not the majority of B/Os do not wear any sort of hat with a logo on it, and you can see very clearly in photos provided that she wears the rest of the MTA uniform. If most B/Os don't even have a head covering on, let alone one with the MTA logo, why would she all of a sudden be required to wear one? It's holding her to a higher standard because of her religion, which is something that is certainly not okay.

 

Note that the US DOJ successfully filed a class-action lawsuit against the MTA regarding this policy and got a settlement where the MTA agreed that its dress code during that time period was discriminatory and dropped the logos on headscarfs and turbans requirement. The only reason she didn't settle was because she also filed suit for improper firing.

I think it only became an issue because she made it one. If they really were "out to get her", they wouldn't have waited 13 years to do so.  To suggest that the is somehow not inclusive is ridiculous, when most workers are minorities.  Hell these days most of the bus drivers I get are black or Latino with some Asians thrown in, and on the rare occasion I'll get a white male driver.  Heck, I even get quite a few female drivers too, again usually black or Latina.  The often agrees to settle as we've seen in numerous occasions.  The thinking is let's settle and not let this drag on because they usually save money at the end of the day.  Just because they settle doesn't necessarily mean that they're admitting guilt.  Sometimes it's just easier to settle and cut your losses.

[bobtehpanda]

I think it only became an issue because she made it one. If they really were "out to get her", they wouldn't have waited 13 years to do so.  To suggest that the is somehow not inclusive is ridiculous, when most workers are minorities.  Hell these days most of the bus drivers I get are black or Latino with some Asians thrown in, and on the rare occasion I'll get a white male driver.  Heck, I even get quite a few female drivers too, again usually black or Latina.  The often agrees to settle as we've seen in numerous occasions.  The thinking is let's settle and not let this drag on because they usually save money at the end of the day.  Just because they settle doesn't necessarily mean that they're admitting guilt.  Sometimes it's just easier to settle and cut your losses.

 

If they weren't out to get her, then why would they only tell her after she came back from a medical leave? If your uniform is out of order, you're usually notified immediately. It doesn't take 13 years to notice that the uniform is not correct; in fact, this is probably one of the first things that is noticed at any company and gets enforced. If the headscarf was such a big problem, she would've been notified upon arrival, and the letter from the imam wouldn't have mattered, but she was allowed to do this for 13 years without any sort of disciplinary action, regarding the uniform or otherwise. She certainly wouldn't have been demoted for just a uniform violation 13 years after the fact.

 

This didn't occur in "these days." The suit was filed in 2004 and is still making its way through the court system. The MTA of today is certainly much different from the MTA a decade ago, and a decade ago this policy of religious headwear and MTA logos existed. The fact that the policy no longer exists is a sign of the fact that it was not necessary, and that the MTA acknowledged its need to accommodate religious views. In fact, these days B/Os don't really wear headwear at all, so what happens today is irrelevant to what may have been a decade ago, and should have no bearing on the court case itself.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

If they weren't out to get her, then why would they only tell her after she came back from a medical leave? If your uniform is out of order, you're usually notified immediately. It doesn't take 13 years to notice that the uniform is not correct; in fact, this is probably one of the first things that is noticed at any company and gets enforced. If the headscarf was such a big problem, she would've been notified upon arrival, and the letter from the imam wouldn't have mattered, but she was allowed to do this for 13 years without any sort of disciplinary action, regarding the uniform or otherwise. She certainly wouldn't have been demoted for just a uniform violation 13 years after the fact.

 

This didn't occur in "these days." The suit was filed in 2004 and is still making its way through the court system. The MTA of today is certainly much different from the MTA a decade ago, and a decade ago this policy of religious headwear and MTA logos existed. The fact that the policy no longer exists is a sign of the fact that it was not necessary, and that the MTA acknowledged its need to accommodate religious views. In fact, these days B/Os don't really wear headwear at all, so what happens today is irrelevant to what may have been a decade ago, and should have no bearing on the court case itself.

The just acknowledged that they didn't want a headache and more lawsuits, so they caved in.  Afterall it's not like they're actually paying out the monies out of their own pocket.  

[realizm]

Yes, "freedom of expression", and "at will"... Like I said, no one forced her to work for the . She was given a list of the rules and if she didn't agree with them, she was free to walk.  I don't see why the should have to bend over backwards for her.  

 

Wait freedom of expression and at will labor laws, yet she is not being respected according to the civil rights act provision 88-352 regarding employment. I see plenty of reasons why the MTA needs to accommodate. Technically the MTA executive committee are breaking federal law and getting away with it sir.

 

The Department of Labor will not let this fly nor the courts. You know that. I dont seem to understand why you are even disputing this. Facts are facts.