That's lame. If you're hired to do a job, do it or quit.

'The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit on their behalf (EEOC v. Star Transport Co., Inc. (N.D. Ill.)), arguing that the employer had failed to provide “reasonable accommodations” to the employees — i.e., accommodations (including an exemption from job duties) that could be provided without “undue hardship” to the employer or others. The court noted that Star Transport had indeed often “swap[ped]’ loads between drivers,” and Star Transport conceded that it could have easily accommodated this request, too, but argued (unsuccessfully) that it shouldn’t be liable for punitive damages.'

Yep, the company clearly goofed.

But calm your race baiting tits - they likely won't see any of the money they were awarded.

'But as the Peoria Journal Star (Andy Kravetz) notes, “Whether the men collect their money is another story. Star Transport went out of business earlier this year and it’s unknown who is now responsible for the judgment.” '

Muslim is a race!!!

/me kicks trife in the fluff.

$240 000 is a little over the top I think. Somewhat understandable that if they were transporting some form of dangerous goods then maybe you wouldn't want to haul it but alcohol??? Now what if it were vanilla extract, or rubbing alcohol? Just do your damn jobs and quit whining...hope they don't see a cent of that money.

Also, as a person in the food industry, I shouldn't have to touch, serve or deal with sour cream, hate the stuff, but you think I would get any sort of compensation for that??? Lmfao not likely, I'm thinking just fired for insubordination.

No, that's not how this works. You wouldn't get compensation. You'd get reasonable accommodations. If you had religious views that prohibited you dealing with sour cream, you'd likely be moved to a different position, whether it be the dishpit, bar, or front of house.

You're also dumb for not liking sour cream. It's totes amazeballs.

If you have religious views that limit what you can transport, maybe you shouldn't be in the transportation side of the industry.

It's not like this dude/dudette tried to get a job as a beer distributor or ABC store cashier. Seems like a normal shipping company. The company has itself stated that it could've easily accommodated for their employees by swapping trucks or routes, but for whatever reason did not.

Two different trucks have to be delivered to two different customers. Why does it matter who drives which truck to which store? It doesn't. If you're not going to make a very very very easy accommodation so that an employee can work with no conflicts with his religion, you're going to get spanked with a large fine and be investigated by the EEOC.

You are making assumptions of the ease of the accomidations.

Nope. In this situation I don't have to make any assumptions whatsoever, since the company itself admitted that they've switched trucks in the past and it would've been easy to do it again.

'The court noted that Star Transport had indeed often “swap[ped]’ loads between drivers,” and Star Transport conceded that it could have easily accommodated this request'

the extremes that are required to pander to everyone's special snowflake status will be the downfall of our economy. much like unions with the auto industry.

regardless of the ease of this one instance, it is cumulative, and it needs to stop. i understand the reasoning behind the regulations, but it isnt worth it imo.

what did the company do when two loads driven by two mooslims needed to drop each alcohol at opposite directions?
which of the two mooslims burn in hell?
its against the law for a company to decide. no?

Agreed

As someone who drove for 3 years I have a little insight here:

1: Swapping does not work the way you think it does. It involves still picking up the load and taking it somewhere at which point you meet with the other driver and literally swap your trailers. So those drivers would still have been required to haul that alcohol SOMEWHERE. Refusing to do even that would get anyone fired. And if the owner did indeed do swap loads the other way on a regular bases, its no wonder his company failed.

2:Swapping loads in the manner described above in in fact routine and can be very efficient if done to take advantage of a driver with only a little time left in their recap (the amount of hours a driver is allowed to work over the course of 7 or 8 days). Given that my 'home' was in Florida (a state that it is difficult to find loads out of) I would usually do this when it was time to come in at the end of a trip.

3:On the other hand, if it is not done to on purpose, having to swap loads can create a headache not only for the company but for other drivers as well. Trip planning is very important for both the company and drivers, so when things don't go according to plan, it can really mess up a lot of people's day or even week getting everything back on track. If they are regularly having to swap in the way the other drivers and dispatchers are not going to be happy.

Trick question. They both get afforded that opporrunity.

you're a disgusting human being.

Thanks Obama! Looking out for his people.

I never claimed to be human.

Haven't you folks figured this all out yet? Geez.

- But as the Peoria Journal Star (Andy Kravetz) notes, “Whether the men collect their money is another story. Star Transport went out of business earlier this year and it’s unknown who is now responsible for the judgment.” -

Hire muslims, go out of business.

***flees from thread***

To everyone fluffing about hiring Muslims and stuff...just remember Kim fluffing Davis.

You're right, fluff facts, like how she defied a court order (which is why she was jailed).

Are all muslims so emo?

Yup.

Kim davis didnt wsnt to marry gays, thats all. Not religiously cleanse the earth usuing all means available. Give an inch and they will take a mile. fluffs out of balance.

the rednecks on AT hate muslims with a passion

who knew?!

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

TIL the evil Muslim truck drivers were trying to "religiously cleanse the earth usuing [sic] all means available".

But Kim Davis did the right thing.

k.

No there is an imbalance of religious accommodation. Its clear where the scale is tipped. No different than the old game plan against Natives.

the lets hate christians movment loves mooslims,
who knew.. ?
squiggly arabic farsi forward |

Maybe it is possible that they both were wrong for not doing their job.

Weird how that works.

Stop making sense, ford, I hate agreeing with you!

I actually agree with mrford too. What I was trying to point out is the idiocy of the people who think it's the Muslims who are doing stupid fluff like this, when in fact the most famous case of this in the last year was a Christian (Kim Davis).

Religious people cause stupid problems no matter what religion it is.

The difference is the reaction.

Davis went to jail, the muslims won a settelment.

One is penalized one is rewarded.

Well, to be fair there ware some differences and the publicity was vastly different, but yeah.

Both lay the tracks for more of the same kind of bullfluff.

Not even true dude. Come on, you know better.

The Muslims were working for a private company. That company is required by law to make religious accommodations.

Kim Davis worked for the government. You can not make religious exemptions when it affects the performance of your duty. She refused to do the job the government was paying her to do - and let me reiterate that working for the government is different than working for a private company - and when the judge asked her to, she refused and was found in contempt of court.

I really don't understand why yall think both situations are the same. They are the same insofar as they both involve religious idiots, but they're not the same when it comes to the actual law.

i dont think you read what i wrote the right way at all. and in my very next post i said they were different.

but to argue the point, religious accommodations is not a blank check. reasonable is the key term there. not being able to ship something that the company needs shipped isnt the same thing as allowing time for prayer.

I think both instances the people should have been let go for refusing their duties.

Ah okay, yes I agree with you.

The problem with Kim Davis though is since she's an elected official, the state legislature would have had to impeach her. Not so easy to fire. Too bad. =\

she just looked like a hateful bible thumper.

A democrat too. Weird situation.