130 Muslim workers fired over unauthorized breaks during Ramadan

[Steven Jamar]

reasonable accommodation requirement is a federal law requirement.  so the
question would be when the accommodation requirement of Title VII conflicts
with a labor standard, what happens.

But there is not necessarily a conflict here.

The accommodation requirement is almost, but not quite, toothless.  The
hardship the employer needs to show to not need to accommodate is minimal.
Almost any negative effect on production would be sufficient.

I don't know how the production lines are run -- whether they can be shut
off for a few minutes or need to be kept running and so on.  I suspect that
they can be paused for extended periods of time without harm to production,
but am no expert.

Steve


On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Alan Leigh Armstrong <alanarmstrong.com@
verizon.net> wrote:

> Swift also has a federal law and perhaps a state law problem.
>
> Federal law requires that employees who work a shift longer than 6
> hours must take a 30 minute lunch break. The lunch break cannot be
> more than 5 hours 30 minutes after they start. (I ran into this many
> years ago when i worked for the Navy. Some people would come in early
> saturday, work 8 hours then go home. They were told they had to take
> a 30 minute lunch break.
> Under federal law, they can work a 6 hour shift without a lunch break.
>
> Does Swift let the employees take 2 30 minute breaks? What does that
> do to production?
> Can Swift put them all on swing or graveyard shift so they are at
> work during the night and avoid the problem of lunch between sunrise
> and sunset?
>
> When reasonable accommodation hits federal law, which prevails?
>
> Alan Armstrong
> Huntington Beach California
>
> On Sep 11, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Douglas Laycock wrote:
>
> > A typically garbled press account, with paragraphs that sound like
> > they're from two different disputes.  So it's hard to tell what's
> > really going on.
> >
> > But if the dispute is really just about a lunch break at sunset,
> > it's a pretty straightforward Title VII accommodation claim.  Hard
> > to imagine what Swift's undue hardship would be if that standard
> > were taken seriously.  Hard to imagine even what a de minimis
> > hardship would be if nearly the whole work force is Muslim.  If
> > there are also lots of non-Muslim workers, Swift might claim it has
> > scheduling problems.  It sounds like at this point they made no
> > effort to accommodate and don't give a damn, but of course they
> > don't have to explain their legal position to a reporter.
> >
> > Quoting "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>:
> >
> > > From
> > > http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/10/swift-company-
> > fires-10
> > > 0-workers/:
> > >
> > > At least 130 Muslim workers at the north Greeley JBS Swift & Co.
> > plant
> > > were fired Wednesday afternoon, apparently over a dispute involving
> > > breaks during Ramadan....
> > >
> > > At issue is a request by Muslim workers to be able to take their
> > lunch
> > > breaks at sunset to end their fast during Ramadan.
> > >
> > > United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 spokesman Manny
> > Gonzales said
> > > that between 130 to 150 workers from JBS Swift & Co. had been fired.
> > >
> > > The firings appear to be related to the walkout of as many as 300
> > Muslim
> > > employees Friday. Many of the workers had been suspended after
> > walking
> > > off the job before their shifts ended....
> > >
> > > But many of the workers who gathered at a Greeley park Tuesday
> > expressed
> > > their dissatisfaction with negotiations by saying, "No prayer, no
> > work."
> > >
> > > Swift spokeswoman Tamara Smid said in a written statement that the
> > > workers were told they would be fired if they didn't report to
> > work when
> > > recalled. Smid didn't specify how many workers were fired. ...
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Eugene
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Douglas Laycock
> > Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
> > University of Michigan Law School
> > 625 S. State St.
> > Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
> >   734-647-9713
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
> > as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
> > that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
> > can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>



-- 
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ) Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20080912/4146f29c/attachment.htm