Muslim drivers fired for refusing to deliver alcohol: EEOC

Business Insurance:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued a trucking firm for allegedly firing two Muslim drivers who refused to deliver alcohol because of their religious beliefs.

The EEOC said Wednesday it is charging Morton, Ill.-based Star Transport Inc. with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.

According to the EEOC, the trucking firm refused to accommodate the two unnamed employees and terminated them.

Click to continue: 


About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

30 Replies to “Muslim drivers fired for refusing to deliver alcohol: EEOC”

  1. Al Qaeda propaganda mag crows about Boston and London attacks, urges more (NBC, May 31, 2013)
    “A new issue of the al Qaeda-published propaganda magazine Inspire crows about recent terrorist attacks in Boston and the U.K. and urges young Muslims to carry out similar “lone wolf” operations against the West.

    An English-language version of the spring 2013 issue of the online publication, obtained Thursday by NBC News, contains multiple articles praising alleged Boston Marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and one on last week’s gruesome knife slaying of a British soldier in London…”

  2. “If I was a woman and didn’t want to break my fingernails, I should be reasonable employed in the warm office; if I was homosexual and offended by crude working class heterosexual banter, I should be able to enjoy homoeroticism with the senior management and what’s herface from Common Purpose in the non-job; if I was the darkest skinned, I’d expect promotion due to all the cumulative time I’d worked there, If I was…

    Oh, F%%%%! the firms gone out of business. It’s like 1970 all over again.

    If I was in the Social Security queue….”

  3. Twenty-Six:
    That is nonsense! They are not being asked to drink the stuff, just deliver it! Doctors who are muslim wash with alcohol all the time and it is not an issue, so what is the problem with these two? This is just the camel’s nose under the tent again; why should a firm with say twenty drivers only have eighteen for certain jobs, just because two think all the world should bend over to accomodate them.

  4. Agreed Robert, Twenty Six and others take a blinkered liberal view that only considers the immediate effect of giving in to such demands, in this case, the effect on the individual firm.

    It may seem unimportant to give a couple of people special consideration for their religious beliefs, but in doing so we are appeasing an extreme interpretation of their faith. They should compromise or adopt a more moderate approach if they chose to live in non Islamic cultures. If they can’t, they are free to return home..

    If we give way to these extreme interpretations of scripture, they become the norm and other employers will be forced to make similar concessions, creating upheaval and inconvenience throughout society in all areas of employment and public life.

    Affording Muslims special privileges and exemptions forces other workers to do those tasks.These uncompromising demands for special consideration are part of the pattern of Islamic conquest. If you force other cultures to respect and observe Islamic norms, that society gradually loses its own culture, becoming islamised with Muslims at the top as a privileged elite.

    The pattern has been repeated throughout history and sometimes takes centuries but it’s extremely successful. Yet freedom of religion doesn’t mean you have the freedom to force your religious views and practices on others. It simply means a right to hold different religious beliefs and practice them in private.

    Somehow the myth has arisen that we’re not allowed to say no to religious demands, even when those demands impact on our freedoms and lifestyle, If we continually bow down and give concessions and privileges, Islam will eventually dominate and force everyone to accept Islamic norms or sharia law, whether they wish to or nor.

    Creeping Islamisation occurs through a gradual process of appeasing these demands and ends with enforced compliance to islamic scriptures and practices, even for those who don’t share or follow the faith. Twenty Six fails to understand the nature of the challenge facing us and why these demands should be resisted.

    If muslims or other faiths cannot fulfill the terms of a job because of religious factors, they must look for another compatible with their beliefs, or remain unemployed without welfare benefits.
    The personal costs and benefits of belonging to any faith should be applicable only to that individual, not visited on others who don’t share it, or forced on society as a whole

  5. It’s cases like this that are going to make employers less willing to employ Muslims, which in the long run is a good thing. The more people that are ‘stung’ by Islam, the more people that will support the counter-jihad movement.
    Two-faced lying Muslims always claim that they are being discriminated against – well, I say let’s make it so they are telling the truth for once. Let’s really start discriminating against them.
    Hire them and fire them at will. Show not ounce of respect for their beliefs.
    Muslims are always playing the victim. Let them play the victim for real, then they really will have something to moan about!
    Here is a simple plan for everyone to deal with Muslims that they may meet on a day-to-day basis:

    1/ If you meet one always show general common courtesy and politeness but don’t engage them any further than necessary.

    2/ Make it clear that you don’t respect their beliefs. Avoid Muslim shops and businesses. Don’t trade with them. If you are an employer, don’t employ any unless absolutely necessary. If you have to cover yourself because of positive discrimination laws, employ Sikhs and Hindus instead.

    3/ Don’t talk to them at all,if you can help it. Don’t show any fear. Make them feel that you believe them to be inferior. Don’t show them any pity as they will see this as a sign of weakness. Warn your kids about Islam. Be prepared to mock and humiliate Muslims if you have to, but otherwise ignore them.

    4/ Hang around with like-minded people. Make as many friends as possible with Islamo-sceptics. Do business with like-minded people. Do business with Jews and Christians, regardless of your own faith or lack of it. If you meet a genuinely friendly ex-Muslim and you know them to be an ex-Muslim (not practising taqiyya), then welcome them into your circle of friends. Show support for apostates. Be careful here however – you have to be sure that they have genuinely abandoned their faith.

    5/ Avoid whenever possible any groups of Muslims consisting of more than two adult males. If you have to deal with them, try to fragment them as much as you can. They only have courage in numbers.

    6/ Last but not least: never, ever trust a Muslim.

  6. And how does everyone here know that this is not just a simple case of an employer engaging in discrimination? I guess it’s ok because it involves Muslims. However, sometimes it’s no more complicated than seeing things for what they are, rather than adopting a knee jerk reaction. If this case was one where the employer was burdened, then it would be necessary to take that in to account. But to read the comments, as much as I have problems with Islam, is rather scary. I don’t like when discrimination occurs against anyone, Muslim, Jew or Christian.

  7. OS26: There are a lot of well documented cases of cab drivers refusing fares because the passenger has a dog or alcohol or some other thing muslims use as a way of forcing their crap on us. I find it repugnant that a person would seek a job as a delivery person then refuse to deliver things because he doesn’t want to be near them. As another person said, no one told him he has to drink it.

    If you don’t want to deliver alcohol dont work for a place that does. If you don’t want to wear safe clothing then don’t seek a job at a warehouse where you cant wear long loose garments on ladders as it breaks Ontario safety rules. We saw that already in Toronto at a FEDEX plant. 3 muslim women sued and WON. Even though it was regulation that they couldn’t be on a ladder in their crappy robes.

    It is not rational to expect the world to change to meet your requirements especially when they are based on superstition and not science.

  8. oldschooltwentysix
    I looked it up the company drives for 8 major companies one of them is Patron spirits.

    That would be grounds for dismissal to not move up to 20% of their shipments

  9. There is a burden to accommodate because it means you have to have someone schedule drivers around what each person decides they want to do or not want to do for whatever stupid reason. It also means that other people have to pick up the slack. Read up on some meat packing plants where Somalis where getting all kinds of breaks in the day to pray and the non muslim employees had to make up the quota and didn’t get the breaks as well.

    I find it funny how all the people who go on and freaking on about equality seem to reverse course when it comes to islam and its special needs, then the same people winge on about ‘accommodation’. Well how about this. If they don’t like the conditions, then don’t take the job.

  10. oldschooltwentysix

    Why should we give in to demands based on religious prejudice? Have we no choice about the type of society we live in? I don’t wish to live in a society where the negative aspects of someone’s religion have an adverse impact on others This isn’t a case of discrimination it concerns a small but growing number of people unwilling to adjust to a non islamic culture and determined to alter society until it fits their beliefs. That society won’t suit me or operate in my interests so why should I assist them to bring it about?

    Perhaps you could explain why a Muslim would take a job they couldn’t do because it clashed with their religious beliefs? If they are unwilling to make compromises with their faith and aspects of life in a non-islamic culture the onus is on them to exercise their choice by living in an Islamic country where their religious prejudices are already pandered to.

    How will society look and function in 50 years if we continually give in to such demands. It is NOT discrimination to insist on equal treatment or equal compliance with rules and regulations and terms of employment. It IS discrimination to grant special treatment and exempt one section of society from the same rules or standards of behaviour the rest of us are expected to follow.

    You believe it’s no great deal to appease these drivers so long as there’s no ‘burden’ on the firm. I presume you mean the financial impact while ignoring the inconvenience to customers and work colleagues, or the impact on society as a whole.

    If these drivers are allowed to discriminate and pick and choose what goods they transport, why not allow the same privileges to cabbies and bus drivers transporting people? Why should one set of drivers have the right to exercise their religious prejudices while another set would face charges under equality laws?

    Cases where Muslim cabbies refuse to provide a service to blind people with guide dogs or refuse to transport anyone carrying alcohol in their shopping bag are regularly reported. How is that any different to these drivers refusing to transport goods they don’t approve of?

    Were do you draw the line. Should all muslims be allowed to wear layers of loose clothing if they insist their beliefs call for it, while a dress code is imposed on other workers?

    Should all Muslim be granted time off to pray while reluctant colleagues are expected to do their work for them?

    Should we bow to demands to ban all pork products to appease religious prejudices?

    Should be give in to demands to accept the rulings of discriminatory Sharia law ?

    At some point OS26 you too will be forced to examine where you draw the line, and why a line needs to be drawn

  11. ldschooltwentysix, I see you refuse to listen to the counterarguments, the plaintiffs lawyers are hired to say that it would not be a burden to accommodate them, that doesn’t make it true. The facts are that the drivers were hired to drive the vehicles, not pick decide what was to be put in the vehicles.

    What if this was a Christian refusing to deliver sex toys to a Homosexual porn shop, would you still say the driver had the right to decide not to deliver them?

  12. Give me a break. I know the counter arguments and sometimes make them myself. I do not support it when Muslims abuse the process. But the knee jerk here that they did, when in the article the EEOC said that the employer was clearly wrong, is a refusal to hear what I said. Sometimes there is actual discrimination, even against Muslims.

  13. In addition, there is this:

    “According to EEOC District Director John P. Rowe, who supervised administrative investigation prior to filing the lawsuit, “Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees’ Islamic religion.”

    Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.”

    If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case.”

    I prefer to let the court hear the evidence, and make a decision, rather than adopt the knee-jerk that the Muslims must be at fault.

  14. Old school 26
    You ignored my questions, but I’ll answer yours. Whatever the religion in question, I don’t believe it is discriminatory to refuse to pander to religious prejudices and demands for special treatment or exemptions from laws and regulations the rest of us are expected to follow. Religion should not be used as a weapon to extort special treatment or privileges.

    We are talking about individual belief systems which can differ from one individual to another, not about someone who is disabled or treated differently because of their sex or ethnicity. How can it be discriminatory if you treat everyone equally?

    The benefits or negative impact of a person’s private beliefs should apply only to that person, not be visited on others or society as a whole. If your belief system puts you at odds with the society you live in. or the job you do, get another job or move to a different society where they pander to those beliefs.

    To argue as you do that equal treatment and expectations is a form of discrimination is an absurdity I can’t get my head around. Perhaps you could explain it?

    If you feel that drivers transporting goods should be allowed to pick and choose what goods they carry based on their religious prejudices, do you also believe cabbies and bus drivers can pick and choose which people they can transport, and refuse to provide a service to hose with guide dogs or bottles of alcohol in their shopping bags?

    Should we have different rules for different sets of drivers? Or would that be a form of discrimination? I really would appreciate your views

  15. If they have to schedule so some drivers never drive for 2 out of 8 clients then that is unreasonable, you seem to think the EEOC is non partisan and always just and right. The EEOC almost always finds against the employer, they are staffed with people who think employers are always wrong.

  16. I am not here to debate, just to state my views. The facts will determine the result here. I don’t think I actually asked any questions.

    I find it a bit odd (maybe not) that so many people here seem to have judged this case as if they are one of the interested parties. They throw out hypotheticals and try to make comparisons and ask all these questions when, as I said, based on the EEOC investigation, this may be a case of discrimination, even if it involves Muslims.

    For the record, one need only go to my blog to see where I stand on the issue of political Islam.

  17. OS26 says

    (1) ‘I am not here to debate, just to state my views.’

    Rather arrogant of you to assert a right to state your views without having them challenged questioned or opposed. On your own blog you may get away with that, elsewhere, it doesn’t work like that.

    (2) ‘The facts will determine the result here’.

    Whose facts? Are you a lawyer by any chance? You have an exaggerated respect for the law not shared in large parts of the UK where respect for the legal system and rule of law have been eroded thanks to the actions of judges and lawyers bringing the system into disrepute, amid growing anger at the manner in which they don’t simply apply the law, they make it up as they go along. Perverting the spirit and intention of lawmakers, ignoring Parliamentary guidance and contorting the law into a vehicle that elevates the rights of terrorists, hate preachers and foreign criminals above the rights and safety of citizens.

    Their actions make it virtually impossible to deport hundreds of vile creatures, no matter how repugnant their actions how repulsive their views or what dangers their continued presence brings
    Your so called ‘facts’ are often nothing more than subjective interpretations and judgements. Take this case. What exactly are the ‘facts’? Does Islam ban the transportation or handling of alcohol or is this an individual and unjustified interpretation of scripture? If it is, should an employer be expected to bow down and accommodate every weird and wacky interpretation of someone’s faith?

    (3) ‘I find it a bit odd that so many people here seem to have judged this case as if they are one of the interested parties.’

    How strange? Why is it odd that people form opinions or judgements about this case? Another elitist comment that infers we have no right to an opinion unless we are directly involved.

    Is this our society too, or are we merely ignorant surfs and plebs who must mutely accept the opinions and decisions of our lords and masters?

  18. Not arrogant at all, just the truth. I do not need, nor am I required, to defend what is my opinion. This wacky notion that one is so obligated is nonsense. You are free to agree or disagree.

    You notice that I let people have their opinions, even if I disagree. Rather than make lengthy arguments that dissect each utterance pertaining to a matter that no one knows the ultimate facts.

    This story is so minor in the scheme of things. If a court determines that this was discrimination, then I have a feeling people will still complain because it involves Muslims and, to some, there is no way that an employer would ever discriminate.

    My comments went to THIS matter, and was based on what the EEOC said. I have no reason to doubt their findings in this case. I did not address the larger issue, and have already said that Muslim abuses should not be excused. So give it a rest, please. I suggest we move on to bigger and better things.

  19. The Hedaya, the Haneefite maddhab fiqh sharia compendium translated into English by the British Raj government in Bengal over 220 years ago, clearly states moslems can buy, sell, and transport both alcohol and pork products to infidels for monetary remuneration. Haneefite sharia was also adopted as the basis of the legal code for the entire Ottoman empire, so ALL the moslem countries were subject to it for centuries; so this is not some great unknown mystery to these moslem complainers even today!

  20. I think some will understandably regard this case and hundreds like it as rather more important than you do.That being said, I’m happy to move on after these final comments

    1) A court may well conclude this was discrimination. That doesn’t mean they are correct to take that view, they merely have the power to enforce it.

    2) Yes, some will complain if the employer is found guilty, not because the people involved are muslim, but because critics of the judgement are better informed on Islam, and know the interpretation placed on scripture was contrary and perverse. Transporting alcohol is not prohibited by Islam. Therefore the employee does not have a valid case of religious discrimination.

    At worst, the employer might be guilty of failing to accommodate a weird personal belief, but not one with a sound basis in religious scripture or teachings,and failure to accommodate wacky personal beliefs is not discrimination or failure to accommodate religious beliefs
    I could argue that my belief in deserving to be paid far more than my colleagues was based on religious convictions, but if I failed to provide evidence to back up this claim, would I win my case? Your confidence in the rightness of decisions reached by the courts are not as widely shared as you may wish..

  21. At least I have some confidence in the legal system, where a judge will review the claims of both sides and make a decision. Have you a better solution than this? If so, I am listening.

    Even as I am sympathetic to much of what is said here, there are times when I think there are excesses. Since no one really knows the underlying facts here, this may be one of them. I knew what the reaction would be, and that was a reason I commented, to state my opinion that we sometimes jump to conclusions just because it involves Muslims.

  22. oldschooltwentysix says: “At least I have some confidence in the legal system”

    Even after the huge conspiracy the IRS, OSHA, FBI, BATF and many others waged against the American people that just came out a week or so ago while the media stated they knew about it for years?

    Why would EEOC investigation be any different?

    Confidence is earned not given

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *