"I'm not here to accommodate your religious beliefs. I am running a business, not a religious community"

"The two female plaintiffs, Zeller, 29, and Maloney, 28, both converted to Islam during the course of their employment at the service station and both alleged that the discriminatory behavior began shortly thereafter."
-- from the article above

My, my. It sounds as if the station manager, Sofiene Romdhani, was spending an awful lot of time on recruiting for the Army of Islam. Not one, but two converts, or "reverts," to Islam? When did he find the time to do it, and for that matter when, while on the job supposedly doing what Exxon was paying them to do, did they find the time to engage in all that deep and thoughtful discussion about the wonders of Islam?

Or was it all a snap, taking no more than a half-hour of deep and sincere looking into naive Infidel eyes, and telling them how they too, could find the Answer To Everything in Islam -- and you know something, you can find The Answer To Everything In Islam, because Islam is a Total System, a Totalitarian System of Belief. That's its charm for the likes of such lost souls as Richard Reid and David Hicks and John Walker Lindh and Yvonne Ridley, and now as well for Michelle Maloney and Bobbi Joe Zeller, and its horror for Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan and Ibn Warraq and all those highly intelligent and morally advanced apostates, and of course for all of us who, lucky enough not to have been born into Islam and therefore lucky enough not to have had to fight our way out of it (and how many of us, really, would have done so, if we lived in societies suffused with Islam?).

Yes. Its charm for the psychically and economically marginal, whom we recognize at once in this tale. And its horror for the rest of us.

Great, next up footbaths next to the gas pumps.

I wonder if you get an official guide to double standards packet in the mail when you join Islam?

"Both also allege that management not only refused to make minor accommodations for their faith but ordered them to do things in direct opposition to Islam, like cleaning men's bathrooms."

Oh no, how horrible. They demanded they do what they were paid to do.

"Around that time, Zeller claims to have encountered the manager who replaced Romdhani openly reading pornographic magazines in the office. She said in the suit she complained and was fired that same day by the manager for “tardiness.”"

"Pornographic"? With Muslims, that could be Reader Digest for all we know.

Assuming that all the charges in the story are true, those Infidel Exxon employees - both the manager, as well as Romdhani's replacement - are heros. Since when is a colleague reading porn grounds for a complaint - unless he openly harasses her/them?

" ordered them to do things in direct opposition to Islam, like cleaning...bathrooms."

Yeah, 600 years ago in the sandpits of Arabia, God came to Moohammad in a dream and said NOT to clean the bathroom. Right.

" ordered them to do things in direct opposition to Islam, like cleaning...bathrooms."

Yeah, 1500 years ago in the sandpits of Arabia, God came to Moohammad in a dream and said NOT to clean the bathroom. Right.

Well whatever men may live in the bathroom must be erotic and seductive in islam. Just like many oh-so-usual body parts. Makes one wonder if some poor woman in dar-ul-islam will get beaten or worse for seeing other man's toilet?

Well whatever men may leave in the bathroom must be erotic and seductive in islam. Just like many oh-so-usual body parts. Makes one wonder if some poor woman in dar-ul-islam will get beaten or worse for seeing other man's toilet?

Two naive pseudo-converts enlisting in the plot to sue for financial gain of religious descrimination. A set up all the way. Simply stooges to corroborate his story.

"Since when is a colleague reading porn a grounds for complaint?"

For some time; the reading creates a "hostile environment." That's settled law, I believe.

"His charges were later verified by an investigation by the Delaware Department of Labor."

We are completely open to this sort of legal claim because Islam is considered a religion, and employers must make a reasonable effort to make accommodation. You want to change how Islam itself is defined? Unlikely, alas.

"employers must make a reasonable effort to make accommodation."

Really? I never heard that.

"employers must make a reasonable effort to make accommodation."

Really? I never heard that.

You must not read a lot of employment law. It's a pretty well known requirement.

Seamus,

Maybe because we are a country founded on Judeo Christian values its never really been an issue so I never heard of it. Of course the word "resonable" is pretty damn vague.

awake:

"Two naive pseudo-converts enlisting in the plot to sue for financial gain of religious descrimination. A set up all the way. Simply stooges to corroborate his story."

Exactly.

And they're suing Exxon, with deep pockets. I bet a decent investigator will find that this is a conspiracy and perjury. You know Exxon will not roll over, but they will likely settle and then Greaseball and his two lackeys will have fulfilled their dream of hitting the lottery and will proceed with screwing up the rest of their lives.

Wait till Zeller and Maloney find out what happens when they try to leave islam.

Interesting. As a Catholic, I was never given any special accommodation for my religious beliefs at any job I worked at that required working on Sundays. I guess it depends on who you are or what your beliefs are to be included in that pretty well known requirement.

I'm passing this story onto Brigitte Gabriel's group, ACT, to see if we can organize some support for Exxon against these lying whiners. She's really good at getting the word out and having people call the right folks to make the biggest stink. We can sit by and watch another company cave dhimmi style or we can get really pissed, expose these three for the frauds they are and take one for our team. I think worse than becoming a Muslim would be knowing that these backassward hillbillies turned Muslimas got away with murder while those of us who have quite a bit more on the ball, let them.

Maybe because we are a country founded on Judeo Christian values its never really been an issue so I never heard of it. Of course the word "resonable" is pretty damn vague.

Your argument doesn't hold water. It was Jews and Christians who established the legal obligation of reasonable accommodation of religious practices. The ADL, for one, seems to be all over it:
http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/religion_workplace.asp

As does the Beckett Fund (interfaith, but founded by a Catholic, and with a Board of Advisors chock-full of Catholics, Protestants, one rabbi, and a Mormon):
http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/topic/9.html

The American Jewish Committee even wants federal legislation to make the obligation of employers to make reasonable accommodation for their employees' religious practices even more binding:
http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=1531911&ct=1588109

According to one of the plaintiffs, a regional manager told them, "I'm not here to accommodate your religious beliefs. I am running a business, not a religious community … I don't have to do anything … I'll get each and every one of you out of here."

I like it. I nominate this regional manager for 2007's anti-dhimmitude award. Outstanding!!!

Interesting. As a Catholic, I was never given any special accommodation for my religious beliefs at any job I worked at that required working on Sundays. I guess it depends on who you are or what your beliefs are to be included in that pretty well known requirement.

Or on whether you hire a labor lawyer who can explain the law to your employer in words the employer will understand (such as "If you don't accommodate my client you will be sued"). Employers are notoriously unfamiliar with the obligation to accommodate, and are unlikely to be impressed when one of their employees tries to argue the point. A letter on law firm stationery, on the other hand, has a remarkable tendency to make an employer realize you're not just blowing smoke.

On the subject of working on Sunday, see, for example, this write-up of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, and Vermont):
http://hr.cch.com/hhrlib/issues-answers/Offering-later-Sunday-shift-not-a-reasonable-accommodation-for-religious-practice.asp?date=June-26-2006

According to one of the plaintiffs, a regional manager told them, "I'm not here to accommodate your religious beliefs. I am running a business, not a religious community … I don't have to do anything … I'll get each and every one of you out of here."

I like it. I nominate this regional manager for 2007's anti-dhimmitude award. Outstanding!!!

You understand, of course, that if this regional manager's position of non-accommodation carries the day, it will reverse the hard work of all the Christians and Jews who have striven to ensure that employers can't just disregard their employees' religious obligations. Don't imagine for a minute that if Exxon thinks it can get away with it, it won't override the consciences of Christians and Jews who take the Third Commandment (or, in the Jewish numbering, Fourth Commandment) seriously.

If the charges made are an accurate reflection of what actually went on then this manager was in violation of antidiscrimination laws, and is legally liable. The only question in my mind is how accurate these descriptions are. I withhold any judgement until the manager is permitted to defend his case.

I don't stand with bigots. But until this man is heard out and the evidence is weighed in court he should not be vilified. One needn't look any further than the last 100 or so CAIR lawsuits to understand how often people are charged with anti-muslim discrimination when they are only stating bald, verifiable facts.

Well see Seamus, that's the thing. The majority of Americans do not hire labor lawyers to plead their case because it requires way too much time, energy and money to fight a case like that, especially when one can make other arrangements, like getting up and going to the early Mass or by getting a job or building a business that doesn't require working on Sundays.

On Exxon's behalf, I resent the fact that the people involved seem to have found a way out of their lower life existence by suing a big company. After all, unless you are the station owner, most people don't dream that they will grow up to work in a gas station. I have no doubt that Sofiene Romdhani is a good little jihadist and is diligently doing his part to further the spread of Islam (in a state who's official bird is a blue chicken) but I really have to wonder what is in it for dumb and dumber. Maybe they just wanted to get out of cleaning the men's bathroom.

to me this looks more like a underhanded attempt at collecting jizha

The economic Jihad continues.

Part MCMXCIX.

There are manuals online for jihadis outlining these exact methods of "legal" harassment to try to bankrupt the infidel dogs.

If you can't do the work, do the shirk.

(Not the Islamic version, which means "adding partners to Allah", or polytheism, by the Western sense of "avoiding performing your paid duties".)

Just don't hire such troublemakers.

Problem solved.

This is the kind of story which makes my blood boil.

Boy, if this ever goes to trial, I'd love to sit on the jury. As an XOM stockholder, I say we let this go to court.

Very bad idea, Capitalist. You must hate money.

Now listen: I'm not a Muslim apologist. Far from it. Hell, I have friends and family who think I'm a racist because of my views on Islam. I clearly belong to the "no more retrograde force exists" camp when it comes to Islam.

That said, I am almost certain from what I've read that Exxon is guilty of some fairly serious mistakes in the case under consideration. Although I agree with Archimedes and others who urge us to wait until the facts are in, my experience from twenty-five years as a state official in Labor leads me to conclude that Exxon will likely now lose in court, and justly so.

If the Human Rights office (or whatever it's called in Delaware) has determined wrongdoing in Exxon's human resources practices, you can take it to the bank. Now please be clear on what I'm saying. It's not that these bureaucrats are infallible when they determine violations of employment law, but such negative determinations are almost always bad news for the employer. The DOL has no authority to force a change in a company's employment practices, but the company should follow the DOL's recommendations closely to satisfy the aggrieved worker to the precise extent stipulated in the determination. If the company fails to do so, many are the law firms who will line up to take the worker's case to court, where they will almost certainly win a great deal more armed with the favorable DOL determination. Note that Bobbi Joe and Billy Sue could have simply joined in the federal civil rights action, but they are seeking a state DOL ruling anyway. Good idea. And it's free.

Please be aware that although the DOL is not infallible, they are generally speaking pro-employer in adjudicating employment disputes. Employers pay the taxes, plain and simple. Employers, not workers, pay unemployment insurance taxes; employers, not workers, pay worker compensation taxes. The DOL is not in the habit of harming its tax base willy nilly, you can be sure. It's easy and natural for Human Rights to find no evidence to support a worker's claim of employer wrongdoing. It's a lot rarer, and much more difficult, to declare an employer in violation of largely pro-business employment law.

I could be wrong, but it looks like Exxon made two huge blunders. First, dealing with obvious nut balls, Exxon figured they could just ignore them instead of implementing a fair grievance process. Second, they employed managers whom they failed to train in basic HR administration, such that one of the managers apparently threatened a worker's job because that worker had voiced a discrimination complaint—which, no matter how absurd, must be addressed soberly and earnestly. A worker might be a nut ball, but if he starts squawking about religious discrimination, sex harassment, or racial bias, you'd better deal with him seriously, unless you don't mind him becoming the owner of the company.

The porn thing is interesting, by the way. Now I of course don’t know if the story is reliable, but it’s a fact that lots of garages and gas stations have porn all over the place but nary a Reader’s Digest to be found. No prob unless the porn creates an “offensive environment,” and we all know Muslims are offended by everything—even by cucumbers and tomatoes shamelessly cohabitating. There are lots of things a company can do when Billy Joe (or was that Bobby Sue?) screams sexual harassment, but one thing it must not do is now fire her for tardiness. It’s so stupid it’s hard to believe. Admittedly, there must be more to the story.

But from where I sit, unsubstantiated facts and details notwithstanding, it looks like Exxon Mobil badly fumbled the ball away somehow. The DOL ruling is devastating to the company’s case. Perhaps it would help if you could finagle your way onto the “jury,” Capitalist (it won’t of course be a jury trial LOL) but otherwise I would have to advise you this is not a good time to be an XOM shareholder.

Regards,

HAID

More evidence that Muslims do not contribute anything to Western economies but in fact are parasites that add costs, through poor performance and lawsuits, to goods and services. Lawsuits such as this reduce efficiency and add costs, passed on to consumers, for goods and services. In addition to security issues, the West pays culturally and financially for Muslim immigration. Muslims in the West are a huge net security and financial drain on the West, a huge jizya paid by all Westerners, and at the same time create cultural drift and rifts in society that, thanks to the power that the PC establishment gives them as well as their own Gulf State-oil-funded agitation, weaken the foundations of Western society.

"The two female plaintiffs, Zeller, 29, and Maloney, 28, both converted to Islam during the course of their employment at the service station and both alleged that the discriminatory behavior began shortly thereafter."

Maloney may be a 2nd or 3rd generation Irish-American. And most likely a former Catholic.

Believe it or not there are literally hundreds of disenfranchised Irish-Catholics in Ireland who are be converted by the enormous influx of Muslims to that little country.

If you want to know the real story about the new wave of immigration to Ireland (approx. 13% of the current population) got to a great site which features the current situation:

http://hiberniagirl.blogspot.com/

I repeat: who converted them, on what company time, for surely they did not become Muslims spontaneously.

And what constitutes "reasonable accommodation"? Would anyone have thought workers at a 24/7 gas station would be hired if it turned out that they insisted that they could not clean all but only some of the bathrooms? Would that be something that they had a duty to inform Exxon of before they were hired, rather than suddenly discover that they could not perform one of their essential tasks?

Don't Muslims, knowing how little Infidels know about their Total Belief-System, which regulates every detail of life, have what might be called a Duty to Disclose, so that would-be employers know exactly what they are going to have to deal with, if they hire that applicant? And one thing all would-be employers should now be put on notice is that Muslim groups are now systematically encouraging use of such lawsuits to get as much from the Infidels as possible -- to intimidate them, to make them remove all barriers to the practice of Islam, and of course, to get as much money from those unsuspecting Infidels as possible.

The law firm that has taken this case should be, but of course is not, ashamed. Perhaps it has other business, and other clients, some of whom may wish to express their displeasure by going elsewhere, the next time they need to hire such a plaintiff's lawyer. There are plenty of firms. Why reward those who take any part whatsoever in the campaign to frighten Infidels into an accommodation that is far more than "reasonable"?

Hmmm. Did Zeller and Maloney become Arabs when they converted to Islam?

Excellent question. Conversely, did the lovely Hirsi Ali turn white when she left Islam? Nope. Then how come we Islamophobes like her so much? I thought we were racists...she must be white now...she isn't? What a mystery...not.

Resisting the poisonous aspects of Islam's core has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with stopping totalitarianism. A Muslim can be as white as snow and if he doesn't reject jihad and dhimmitude for non-Muslims, he has no right to remain in Western societies.

"For surely they did not become Muslims spontaneously".
Posted by: Hugh

We've had 'Incendiary Muslims', Inflammable Muslims' and the occasional explosive variety I'm not overly keen on the idea of 'Spontaneous Muslims', that's just too horrible to contemplate!

...the morale of the story....Do not Hire Muslims....ever.....

Ban Muslim Immigration...

Continuing message to American employers:

STOP HIRING MUSLIMS!!!

...the morale of the story....Do not Hire Muslims....ever.....

Of course, you'd have to repeal title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 first.

For 'oppressed and downtrodden' followers of Islam
seems no end of Lawsuit claims when Muslims actually do venture into workforce...
Today-according to Daily Mail-the owner of Funky
Hairstyles & Cuts is being sued into the ground by
unfunky woman wearing a headscarf which she insists upon wearing at all times-claiming RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION in 24 previous unsuccessful interviews
for Hairdresser jobs-so has now DECIDED TO SUE
THE 25TH INFIDEL REFUSENIK in the U.K.
Of course no Business employing anyone SHOULD HAVE
TO ACCOMODATE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. You can see how
far the West has fallen when Secular countries such as U.S & Britain pander to Islam-yet again!

As regards Hugh's posting, above:
"The law firm that has taken this case should be, but of course is not, ashamed. Perhaps it has other business, and other clients, some of whom may wish to express their displeasure by going elsewhere, the next time they need to hire such a plaintiff's lawyer. There are plenty of firms. Why reward those who take any part whatsoever in the campaign to frighten Infidels into an accommodation that is far more than "reasonable"? "

There must be many lawyers out there, too, who have had experiences similar to that of a friend and fellow-parishioner of mine. His opinion of Islam is implacably hostile. While practising as a lawyer (he has since decided to change professions, for personal reasons) he once had a Muslim client. In court, he discovered that his client had lied to him - coolly and flatly - about just about everything to do with the case, including the critical point on which the case he was making, depended. He could not, I understand, at that point, walk out, but he told me that in all dealing with that client which he subsequently endured, he made the working assumption that everything the client said was a lie unless backed up by an independent non-Muslim source.

If you are a lawyer, and that kind of thing has been your experience also - mindboggling barefaced mendacity from a Muslim client, or a Muslim opponent - share it! Post the story here. Spread it among your colleagues.

Such lawyers, 'burnt' by bitter experience with the total mendacity of Muslim clients, need to spread their knowledge. Not all lawyers are amoral. The principled ones - Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Confucian Chinese, nonreligious - could read up on Joseph Schacht, or (if French-literate) Fattal, and visit Ali Sina and find out about taqiyya and kitman, and dhimmitude, that system of systematised and extreme injustice far worse than Apartheid or Jim Crow. They could make it their business to know about the Treaty of Hudaybiyya and the verses of the Quran that forbid Muslims to make permanent agreements with non-Muslims - and the implications of that, in every area of our society, now that that society is permeated with Muslims.

If you are a lawyer, whether civil or criminal or even in family and commercial law, reading and lurking here, take note. On the one hand, if you support frivolous Muslim soak-the-infidel suits, and other such things, you may lose custom from clued-up non-Muslims, who have taken Hugh's advice, above, to heart.

On the other hand: you owe it to the Law itself, to Justitia, to the Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, the English, the Founding Fathers, to the great judges and jurists of our history, to the heroic fictional figure of Atticus Finch, to defend the vast work-in-progress of Western Civilisation which is under assault from those who would (in V S Naipaul's withering phrase, concerning Pakistan) destroy the Rule of Law and replace it with Nothing - the chaotic Nothing that is Sharia, Muslim 'law', visible in all its hideousness under the Taliban, and under the House of Saud, or in Iran, a 'law' of tyranny and slavery, for 'allah' is a capricious tyrant and where allah is worshipped, tyrants like Saddam Hussein or the ottoman sultans rule by whim; and the religious police cut off hands and heads and flog women for the sin of having been raped; and the word of a non-Muslim is always trumped by the word of a Muslim, for all Muslims are innocent and all non-Muslims are guilty by definition.

Law as we understand it and have created it, at every level, from the county court to the International arena (pacta sunt servanda; Human Rights) is under assault from the Empire of Islam. If you, O American, Australian, English, Canadian lawyer or judge, have even a tiny spark of idealism left, know that you stand on the front lines of a war.

But...under sharia, are they not ALLOWED to work???