A controversial case has reached a controversial conclusion, at least for the time being. A group of Muslim workers who filed claims alleging religious discrimination against their employer have lost their suit after the judge in the case sided with the employer.
The U.S. District judge presiding over the case did not see evidence of mistreatment, and cleared the meat packing plant of any claims of mistreatment of its Somali Muslim employees. The employees had alleged that they were being discriminated against based on the plant’s refusal to grant them what they considered “reasonable religious accommodations.” Their case seemed to hold water, as it was taken up and represented by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, a federal organization.
The case, which was first filed in 2010, alleged that the plant had refused to grant these accommodations at least as far back as 2007. The specific grievances centered primarily on the request to be granted special time allowances for religious prayer. The judge in the case, after reviewing all of the evidence extensively, concluded that there was no evidence to conclude that discrimination took place. When questioned about the suit, a representative for the employer stated that he had informed the employees in question that their requests were in violation of some provisions of their collective bargaining agreement.
Whether this particular case will be taken up by a higher court, or if this ruling will stand still remains to be seen. If anything, it serves to illustrate just how complex the world of workplace discrimination can be, and how it is often not as cut and dried as it may seem. If you or someone you know believes that you have been the victim of workplace discrimination, you owe it to yourself and anyone else who may be experiencing similar frustrations to consult with an experienced workplace discrimination lawyer. An experienced lawyer can help you protect your rights as you pursue justice.
Source: Miami Herald, “Muslim workers lose prayer dispute lawsuit against company,” Sep. 27, 2016
