Minneapolis Taxicab Controversy
lederman.marty at gmail.com
Thu Mar 8 03:29:42 PST 2012
Thanks very much, Marie. Is any or all of this documented somewhere, in
addition to the state court of appeals case?
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Marie A. Failinger <
mfailinger at gw.hamline.edu> wrote:
> Just to add to my previous post in response to Marty's questions:
> 1. Not all of the Muslim cabbies felt religiously obliged to refuse to
> carry passengers with open displays of al to the cohol (or dogs) as I
> remember. However, there was a fatwa issued by a local Muslim organization
> saying that they shouldn't do it. Since a fatwa is a legal opinion, it
> certainly provides legal authority for the cabbies' insistence that they
> shouldn't do it; it wasn't simply their personal view per se.
> 2. Airport regulation 102 now provides that taxi drivers cannot refuse to
> take a passenger unless he refuses to pay, is seriously intoxicated or is a
> physical threat. One provision of the section also prohibits drivers from
> refusing service based on race, gender, religion, national origin,
> ethnicity, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, or age, or
> having a service dog.
> 3. The cabbies' appeal for an injunction was denied by the trial court
> and upheld by Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2008 on the basis that they had
> an adequate remedy at law--any license denial could be appealed and the
> cabbie could keep his license in the meantime. Dolal v. Metropolitan
> Airports Com'n, 2008 WL 4133517
> I couldn't find much recently about the effect on Muslims serving the
> airport except this related news, in January, a major airport taxi company
> here fired Somali drivers who protested the refusal of the company to sit
> down and negotiate their working conditions
> Marie A. Failinger
> Professor of Law
> Editor, Journal of Law and Religion
> Hamline University School of Law
> 1536 Hewitt Avenue
> Saint Paul, MN 55104 U.S.A.
> 651-523-2124 (work phone)
> 651-523-2236 (work fax)
> mfailinger at hamline.edu (email)
> >>> Marty Lederman <lederman.marty at gmail.com> 3/7/2012 5:35 AM >>>
> Can anyone point me to a good, thorough account of what happened in
> Minneapolis, including (i) the explanations, if any, the cabbies offered
> for why the lack of the exemption burdened their religious exercise (did it
> mean they were unable to accept work as other forms of common carriers,
> such as pilots, UPS/FedEx delivery employees, bus drivers, etc.?); (ii) how
> the controversy was resolved as a matter of law; and (iii) what became of
> the Muslim drivers after the exemption was revoked.
> Thanks in advance.
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw