Federal suit alleges Maita Chevrolet had religious bias

[Stan]

Federal suit alleges Maita Chevrolet had religious bias against salesman

By Denny Walsh

dwalsh@sacbee.com

Published: Friday, Sep. 30, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 6B

Federal regulators sued Elk Grove's Maita Chevrolet on Thursday, claiming the car dealership violated anti-discrimination law when its management refused to accommodate the religion of a Seventh-Day Adventist employee.

Anthony Okon, a Nigerian immigrant who was a car salesman at the dealership from April 2005 to May 2007, was "harassed, disciplined, and discharged … because of his religion," the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity alleges.

The lawsuit, filed by EEOC attorneys in federal court in San Francisco, says Okon's religion forbids secular work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. But, it says, Okon "was harassed, denied work on Sundays, and ultimately … discharged for taking leave to observe his Sabbath."

The general manager of the dealership did not return a call seeking comment.

"Where there is a conflict between an employee's religious beliefs and work rules, the law mandates that an employer make a sincere effort to accommodate those beliefs," said EEOC regional attorney William Tamayo. "Maita Chevrolet's refusal to explore any workable solutions with Mr. Okon was not only illegal but short-sighted."

Okon is quoted in an EEOC release as saying: "I was recognized for my customer service and teamwork, and I was willing to work any other time."

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of Okon, training of Maita personnel on anti-discrimination laws, and other steps to prevent a recurrence of the dealership's alleged actions.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/30/3949700/federal-suit-alleges-maita-toyota.html#ixzz1ZR67OHL1

[LynnDel]

There are those who think this kind of discrimination doesn't happen any more in the US, but it seems like this type of case pops up to remind us to enjoy and thank God for the freedoms we have - and to jog us into not to sitting back and letting them disappear.

[Alchemy]

Justice is being served too seldom in cases such as this one. The U. S. States Supreme Court has made it harder than it once was to win these cases.

I am glad to see this case going well.

Alchemy

[Overaged]

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of Okon, training of Maita personnel on anti-discrimination laws, and other steps to prevent a recurrence of the dealership's alleged actions.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/30/3949700/federal-suit-alleges-maita-toyota.html#ixzz1ZR67OHL1

I smell yet another quarter million dollars flooding someone's bank account soon.

[Dr. Shane]

There are those who think this kind of discrimination doesn't happen any more in the US, but it seems like this type of case pops up to remind us to enjoy and thank God for the freedoms we have - and to jog us into not to sitting back and letting them disappear.

I have been denied employment many times because I tell them in the job interview that I am an Adventist.

[phkrause]

I have been denied employment many times because I tell them in the job interview that I am an Adventist.

After I got laid off in Feb '08, I signed up to take the USPS course and passed. I waited for my first interview. I received my letter and went in to the PO. At first I wasn't gonna say anything, but during the interview I realized that they wanted me to fill in on Sabbath for this one carrier. So I told the guy that I was an SDA and followed the Biblical Sabbath. That I couldn't work. So he told me that that was the only day they needed me. A number of adventist friends told me that I should take them to court, I declined to do that. In the PO manual it tells you that you have to be available every day of the week. They might not deliver mail on Sundays but they are open sorting the mail. I find it very hippocrital of SDAs they get themselves hired never saying or telling there future employer that they can not work Sabbath, and than after being hired they fess up and say oh by the way I can't work saturdays. I have no problem with those that become SDAs and than ask for the day off.

[Dr. Shane]

It depends on the job. The law reads that an employer must make a reasonable effort to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs. Adventists can't do all jobs because of our religious beliefs. Adventist women don't apply for jobs as strippers at Gentlemen Clubs and then explain they can't get naked because of their religious beliefs. Adventists don't apply for jobs as bartenders and then expect to only serve milk and soda. Some jobs require their workers to work on Sabbath just because of the nature of the business. Other jobs can accommodate Sabbath keeping without any major interruption in the function of their business.

My job does not require me to work on Saturdays unless one of the superintendents working under me were to get sick or go on vacation and I would be needed to fill in. That circumstance happens a couple of times each year. The companies I have worked for have been able to accommodate me by moving an carpenter up into a superintendent position for one day during those events. However many people just don't want to deal with an religious accommodation at all. That is unfortunate because religious people tend to have a better work ethic and miss less days of work. While it isn't always true, hiring someone that believes they are accountable to a deity is normally going to increase the chances of getting a good employee.

[CoAspen]

[Alchemy]

It depends on the job. The law reads that an employer must make a reasonable effort to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs. Adventists can't do all jobs because of our religious beliefs. Adventist women don't apply for jobs as strippers at Gentlemen Clubs and then explain they can't get naked because of their religious beliefs. Adventists don't apply for jobs as bartenders and then expect to only serve milk and soda. Some jobs require their workers to work on Sabbath just because of the nature of the business. Other jobs can accommodate Sabbath keeping without any major interruption in the function of their business.

My job does not require me to work on Saturdays unless one of the superintendents working under me were to get sick or go on vacation and I would be needed to fill in. That circumstance happens a couple of times each year. The companies I have worked for have been able to accommodate me by moving an carpenter up into a superintendent position for one day during those events. However many people just don't want to deal with an religious accommodation at all. That is unfortunate because religious people tend to have a better work ethic and miss less days of work. While it isn't always true, hiring someone that believes they are accountable to a deity is normally going to increase the chances of getting a good employee.

There is also a status aspect to this kind of discrimination. The harder it is to replace you, the easier it is to get Sabbaths off and vice versa.

[olger]

I am going to take an unpopular position.

"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you" (Matthew 5).

I believe that God's promised blessings to His followers who endure trials - are forfeited when they seek secular litigation against the cause(s) of the trial.

"For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Peter 2:20-21).

[Overaged]

I think that sometimes "secular litigation" is OK. Huge "settlements" I think is going too far.

[Gregory Matthews]

It is more than highly unlikely that the following will occur.

I smell yet another quarter million dollars flooding someone's bank account soon.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The Federal lawsuit was settled for $158,000.  For more on this see:

 

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-27-13e.cfm

[Gregory Matthews]

Phkrause said below:

That is illegal on its face.  The law required an attempt at reasonable accommodation regardless of the statement below.

Some months back, while waiting in a store for my wife I sat down at a desk and reviewed the on-line application for employment in that national store chain.  One of the questions asked people to identify any days and times on which they would NOT be available to work.  Then the fine print below that question stated that people who could not work specific days and hours due to religious beliefs should NOT identify that on the application.  That was legal.  Under established case law people are allowed to identify their religious requirements AFTER they have been offered a job.  It is NOT Legal for an employer to require such prior to offering one a job.

NOTE:  Do not push this out to the extreme.  One who can not serve alcoholic beverages can not perform the  job requirements at any time in a position that is in a bar serving drinks. 
Such an accommodation can not be reasonably made.

 

I declined to do that. In the PO manual it tells you that you have to be available every day of the week.