Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > The Judicial Branch

The Judicial Branch Topics and information of interest to SOS associates in relation to courts, law, and justice

WELCOME BACK!.............NEW EFFORTS AHEAD..........CHECK BACK SOON.........UPDATE YOUR EMAIL FOR NEW NOTIFICATIONS.........
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-23-2011, 03:50 PM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default Justice Department sues on behalf of Muslim teacher

Justice Department sues on behalf of Muslim teacher, triggering debate
In November 2008, Khan filed a religious discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and last year, the commission found cause for discrimination and referred the case to the Justice Department.
Justice lawyers sued in December, the first lawsuit in a pilot project to increase coordination on employment discrimination between the department’s Civil Rights Division and the EEOC.
The suit argued that the district violated the Civil Rights Act by failing to accommodate Khan’s religious beliefs. By “compelling” Khan to choose between her job and religion, the lawsuit says, the district forced her discharge. The government is seeking back pay, damages and reinstatement for Khan, and a court order requiring Berkeley schools to find ways to accommodate religious practices.
A trial date has not been set.
Berkeley school officials declined to comment but said in court papers that Khan’s request was “unreasonable” and would have imposed an “undue hardship.”
Federal law requires employers to “reasonably accommodate” religious practices unless doing so would impose such a hardship. The Supreme Court has interpreted the provision narrowly, saying accommodations should be granted only if they impose a minimal burden on employers.
Hans von Spakovsky, a Justice Department civil rights official in the Bush administration, said, “No jury anywhere would think that a teacher leaving for three weeks during a crucial time at the end of a semester is reasonable.”
“This is a political lawsuit to placate Muslims,” he said.
Perez said the district committed “a very serious” violation by “summarily” rejecting Khan’s leave. He added that Bush officials critical of the department’s lawsuit had “amnesia” because they filed similar lawsuits. “I’m perplexed as to why suddenly, in the context of protecting Muslims,” there is opposition from officials in the former administration, he said.
Eugene Volokh, an expert on religions and the law at the UCLA law school, said he does not know of any cases involving a 19-day leave, though many courts have said employees can take off one weekend day on the Sabbath in some circumstances. “That’s a 52-day-a-year leave, just not all at once,” he said.
A number of courts have also upheld religious-based leaves of up to 10 days.
But Khan’s 19 consecutive days “cuts against her, makes it more of a hardship for the employer” said Volokh. He added, “I don’t want to suggest that this is an easy case for the Justice Department” to win.
In Berkeley, opinions on the lawsuit — and Khan — are divided.
“What about the kids’ rights?” said Mike Hasapis, owner of the local coffee shop. “Don’t they have a right to be educated? Three weeks off is a long time.”
Bernard Peters, whose daughter attends Khan’s former school, said the district “should have accommodated her. It’s her religion. Right is right.”
A few miles away at the Islamic Foundation, support for Khan was uniform. “If she was a Jew, would they treat her the same way?” Nabih Kamaan of Bloomingdale, Ill., asked as he arrived for Friday prayers.
“What if she was sick? What if she had a baby?” said Kamaan, who added that the lawsuit “is the right thing to do.”
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-23-2011, 06:27 PM
Rim05 Rim05 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: So CA
Posts: 1,222
Default

Quote:
“What about the kids’ rights?” said Mike Hasapis, owner of the local coffee shop. “Don’t they have a right to be educated? Three weeks off is a long time.”
Bernard Peters, whose daughter attends Khan’s former school, said the district “should have accommodated her. It’s her religion. Right is right.”
A few miles away at the Islamic Foundation, support for Khan was uniform. “If she was a Jew, would they treat her the same way?” Nabih Kamaan of Bloomingdale, Ill., asked as he arrived for Friday prayers.
“What if she was sick? What if she had a baby?” said Kamaan, who added that the lawsuit “is the right thing to do.”
This is right, why should a teacher think or expect the school and the children to accomodate her time off for her religion.
If a teacher thinks he/she needs so much time off, Perhaps they should not be a teacher. As long as they get away with their arrogance , the more they will want.

Last edited by Rim05; 03-24-2011 at 04:50 AM. Reason: misspelled word
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-31-2011, 05:05 PM
Kathy63 Kathy63 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 380
Default

The travesty is, the woman isn't suing, it's the government on her behalf. I doubt if she was Christian and took time off to have a baby the justice department would be involved at all.

Fact is, medical emergencies are unexpected. This woman knew all along that she was going to ask for this time off. It was nothing more than fraud. Nevertheless, she could have sued on her own. Now it's the federal government stepping in which is absolutely and totally disgusting. But with a muslim in the white house, we should expect more and more of this.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved