Hi Chair,
Interesting case - incidentally, the owner is actually suing on the basis of
racial discrimination not religious discrimination as employment law tends to be very tight on not discriminating on the basis of race but with few restrictions regarding discrimination on the basis of religion. Here is part of the ABA's summary of the case:
Recent cases reflect the difficulty some companies have had in integrating Muslim workers and others into their workplace or business. For example, in August 2002, Walid Elkhatib opened a letter from the general counsel of Dunkin’ Donuts informing him that the company would not be renewing his franchise agreement. Elkhatib, whose Muslim faith forbids him from handling pork, had refused to sell the company’s new line of breakfast sandwiches at any of his three restaurants. When the time came for Elkhatib to renew his franchise, the company declined his application, citing his refusal to sell the full line of products. Not fitting the template for an employment discrimination case reachable under Title VII, Elkhatib invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which bars racial and certain forms of ancestry discrimination in the making of contracts. The federal court ultimately rejected Elkhatib’s claim, finding that it was a religious rather than a racial claim (hence not reachable under section 1981), and that the Dunkin’ Donuts rule affected religions such as Islam and Judaism equally. Elkhatib v. Dunkin’Donuts, Inc., No. 02 C 8131, 2004 WL 2600119 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2004).
The fact is many businesses routinely make decisions that interfere with an employees free exercise of their religion. For instance, when the local Goodyear plant in our area recently insisted that one of our congregants switch over to working on Sunday, he found that he had no legal protections against the move despite the fact that as a church we are strongly opposed to non-essential work on the Lord's Day (for a brief round-up of why this is the case please
click here). I know of another Christian who ended up selling his franchises over the parent company's insistence that he carry pornographic magazines. The fact is that in the United States, when it comes to matters of religion, the balance of power is definitely with the employer not the employee. Many of our congregants have had to accept this and turn down jobs or work extra hard because of this, and I've had to deal with absurd religious discrimination in the workplace myself. As Christians we should be willing to accept this as part of the price of following Christ.
Personally, while I sympathize with Walid's desire not to go against conscience (even though I obviously don't agree with Muslim dietary restriction), I find his legal appeal to his
race as the basis for the discrimination he is encountering to be lame, frankly. If the Kuffar's insist on him selling pork in order to be part of his chain, he should be willing to leave the franchise and pay the price of his conviction. I can't count the number of Christian friends I have who've had to do essentially that including one concert pianist who has turned down world tours because the contract stipulated Sunday performances.
While I believe in the principle of reasonable accomodation, I accept that there is simply no way every company can accomodate every religious belief. A western modeling agency, for instance, is not going to be able to accomodate the Muslim requirement that women wear the Hijab. An Automaker is not going to be able to accomodate Amish employees on the assembly line, and so on.
Unfortunately, since societally we are becoming increasingly balkanized and have abandoned the ability to discriminate between truth claims, I think we are going to see more rather than less of these lawsuits.
- SEAGOON
