In a bid to get her job back, Charee Stanley filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday for the revocation of a reasonable religious accommodation.

She wants to do her job without serving alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith -- just as she was doing before her suspension, her lawyer said.

"What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely," said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Stanley, 47, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.

She approached her supervisor on June 1 and was told to work out an arrangement for someone to fulfill passenger requests for alcohol.

"It was at the direction of the airlines that she began coordinating with the other flight attendant on duty so that when a passenger requested alcohol, the other flight attendant would accommodate that request," Masri said. "We know that this arrangement has worked beautifully and without incident and that it hasn't caused any undue burden on the airline. After all, it was the suggestion of the airline."

It seemed to be working out until another flight attendant filed a complaint against Stanley on August 2 claiming she was not fulfilling her duties by refusing to serve alcohol, Masri said. The employee complaint also said Stanley had a book with "foreign writings" and wore a headdress.

On August 25, the airline sent a letter to Stanley informing her that it was revoking its religious accommodation to exclude her from service of alcohol and placing her on administrative leave.

"They have paid her unpaid leave and they advised her that her employment may be terminated after 12 months," Masri said. "We are requesting that her employment be reinstated and the accommodation of her religious beliefs be reinstated as well."

A spokesman for ExpressJet declined to discuss Stanley's complaint.

"At ExpressJet, we embrace and respect the values of all of our team members. We are an equal opportunity employer with a long history of diversity in our workforce. As Ms. Stanley is an employee, we are not able to comment on her personnel matters," spokesman Jarek Beem said in an email

I am sure they have a line of people looking for jobs...she can go find another

In my previous line of work, I worked with Muslims who wanted to run businesses like Deli and 7-Eleven that sells beer and pork products. It's a tough decision but they get around it. Today, most of these guys fulfill their dreams of owning their own business. Some business do not make accommodation for religious belief. You have to make exceptions.

Well....she out of work now

She should try to get a job with one of thone Arab airlines

Those airlines only want fair skin people

The job is to serve non Muslims and Muslims. She either do it or leave. 

While I would agree that Stanley should either execute her duties or quit no different than the current case in Kentucky, her employer accommodated her request. It is not the place of a fellow employee to comment on the employment arrangement of another employee. She could try to sweet up her own deal if she wants. In simple terms, she should have minded her own business. Too many people in the world minding other peoples' business instead of dealing with their own shit. 

Riff you forgot the blond hair and blue or grey eyes.

Most of them serve alcohol including Egypt Air and Turkish airlines.

 

 

Try tell an observant Jew that she must serve Pork.

Worse yet, try terminating an observant Jew for not wanting to serve pork.

She should look for work with ISIS.

An asinine comment.

I sympathize with this attendant. According her religion, it is Haram and against her spiritual values. She should not be dismissed. 

 

I admire this woman's respect for her religion.

 

The airline should ask other attendants to serve Liquor. In fact, liquor should be banned from flights.

Are you kidding me?!?!!?

 

 

In this age of airlines trying to minimize flight attendants in reference to number of passengers, how many times we press the call button that was not answered, because the few attendants were busy serving other passengers.

It is difficulty on other attendants when one is limited in their service to a passenger. The complaint by the other attendant is justified, because she was doing someone else's job requirement, maybe for a similar wage.

 

Similar to the other woman in the US who will not issue marriage licence to gay couples, when it is a federal law, Stanley should find another job that will accommodate her religious belief.

This comment has nothing to do with her being a Muslim.      

She knew what the job entails before she accepted employment. Leh she haul she raas dah side.

In America we Muslims should be thankful to the Jews for the strides they made .

Imagine in NYC the entire primary elections are shifted to this Thursday because of Rosh Hashana.

Maybe you have been absent from the workforce long enough to know that people don't do other peoples' work, they do what their supervisors instruct them to do. Wages and functions have no relationships between employees. Her Employer already afforded her that facility. The other associate complaining must be a bigot just like you are. So much for your "have nothing to do with her being a Muslim". You shudda quit last year when no one was awared of your vile bigotry.

Did it escape you that when she accepted the job nearly three years ago, she was not a Muslim nor had a problem with serving alcohol? Did it escape you that she did not just refuse to serve alcohol as the clerk in Kentucky did but instead sought and was granted a recourse? I guess you did or is yuh wutlissness getting the better of you.

So when a Muslim don't have their way, they strap on bomb and take it out on others ?

Like Redux would say ".... lifting up your skirt . . . exposing your leprosy....." You just couldn't help yourself.

So where in the HQ is it stated the a muslim is forbidden to serve alchohol? Are Muslims forbidden to work on sugar estates and vinyards?

Why are you calling the man a bigot? That is his interpretation of events and he is entitled to it. I find it reasonable. The Employer per the supreme court ruling in the hobby lobby case had the reverse exemption to avoid what its owners ( closely held corp) saw as contrary to their religion, if and only if an easier means to satisfy the law exist. It allows the employer to discriminate per religious beliefs but not as a rule. Other means to serve the public had to exist. The only other way to be equitable in an employee. employer relationship here is to fire her. One cannot ask others to do her duties.

 

The employers in this case asked that employees make personal arrangements and were under no obligation to expressed instruct others to do what would otherwise cover her duties. They tried to accommodate her on a voluntary basis.

 

It obviously did not work out for her since the other employee is also well within her right not to be expected to perform duties she would not otherwise be required to perform simply to accommodate this woman. Anyone can come up with a hundred other exemptions ie Hindus not handling meat etc how does one accommodate this given its capacity to be extremely complex.

 

This is an undue request on a society to accommodate a person because of their personal desire to not be a part of what is a normal function in the society. These kinds of demands pisses me off. It may not be the same case is in Kentucky where the Clerk refuses to comply with the mandate from the court to allow gay marriage but a close parallel.

 

Religious people full of crap. I think as an atheist I can demand not to tolerate this bullshit as it infringes on my right....I guess I have those rights as well. They purpose of the law and social living is to accommodate plural living. When something is inconsistent, the majority preferences and tastes takes the day.

Bai, my argument has noting to do with what is in the Qur'an. People make all kinds of requests to their employers all the time and they are not all related to religion. In her case, she went through the proper channel, received the permission she sought. End of story. The other employee can try to get benefits for herself too if she wishes. Complaining about what others get is minding other peoples business. There is no such thing as equal pay for equal work because there is no such thing as equal work even when people are in the same capacity. I can safely say that I have never really worked hard my entire work life. Not even in Guyana. I have always used my brain to make my work easy. I can go back to my days in Guyana when I was known for always looking for the easiest way to do my work. If others in my capacity can't do better than spin their wheels, that is their problem.

The permission she got was to find someone willing to help her not someone unwilling as in this instance. The employer cannot formally request that all staffers do what religious people refuse to do per their religion. That makes for a confused work environment with all sorts of religious exemptions being made possible. Managers have jobs to do. Their company advertise the job employees are hired per their willingness to meet the conditions of the job. That is the safest legally and most pragmatic route.

I call him a bigot because I see him as a bigot. I don't find his argument reasonable because it is missing the most important element which is a permission from her employment. Bear in mind, I am not arguing that they don't have the right to revoke their earlier granted permission. Regarding the other associate, she did not just posit that she cannot accommodate the arrangement suggested by the employer. She filed a complaint that Stanley was not "fulfilling her duties". My earlier argument against the associate was that it was not her place to comment on the employment arrangement of another employee. That shows her objection as bigotry much more than as objecting to unfair practices in the workplace. That and her additional comment that Stanley "Stanley had a book with "foreign writings" and wore a headdress".

No argument here. She accepted the job and its responsibilities. Her personal needs changed so she went through the proper channel to get permission to change her functions. Management granted that permission and it worked well. Until her bigoted associate decided to file a complaint.

Could you imagine a cabin of mainly alcohol consumers asking for their drink and every other employee, not many these days, having to take up the slack? I would be pissed if I worked in s shoe store and the Hindu guy said he is only handling the faux leather and not the real thing. 

Did it occur to you that the jews in America control the government? Imagine a few thousand jews in America dictating to the president to go destroy the muslim world? Muslims should be thankful to the jews for killing muslims?

That concern only becomes relevant if management decides that it is.

Actually, nowadays Muslims are under attack more from their own Muslim mattee than from others. Muslims' problems are mostly within nowadays.

Management would be opening themselves for severe discrimination suits from all sorts if they begin to make these quasi binding rules in the work environment. It also permits for lack of accountability. Either they specialize in leather and faux leather shoes in different outlets or forge one binding rule. They sell shoes and anyone working there is there solely for the purpose of accomplishing that task.

Too late in this case. They already did. Permission sought and granted. Worked out well until a bigoted co-worker filed a complaint.

I is not too late. She converted...she changed the rule. The management tried to accommodate her because she obviously was a good worker otherwise. However, another employee objected. The original rule has precedence.

I would complain too...

I am not saying that it is too late to revoke that permission. In fact, I noted that in an earlier post. I was saying that it was too late for revisionist theory since permission was already granted. Management obviously did not consider that when permission was granted.

 

I refer back to my very first post on this topic regarding my objection.  

I can't relate. I have always had sweet deal employment conditions.