Welcome to the Slippery Slope

[Bluegoat]

But we do have religious accommodations. Reasonable ones.

And we do have accommodations for disabilities. Reasonable ones.

 

Reasonable meaning it doesn't significantly impact other people, especially the employer.

 

When you look at that from the perspective of a country where reasonable means it would be not be onerous, and yet business still survives, that doesn't look all that generous. 

[SKL]

Which means you have to argue the circumstances, which many people have done.  I think they have made a fairly convincing argument, though there is always the question of whether the system itself is actually a problem that should be looked at. 

 

Saying that accommodation only needs to be superficial, that employers get to set all the conditions of jobs, people should not expect others to have to change in any meaningful way, etc, is not making that argument - it is just saying that religious liberty will, at best, be given no more than lip service when it really comes down to it, so don't ask.

 

Well, I didn't say any of those things, but here is what I am saying.  Religious liberty is not about being able to take any job you prefer and demand every change you want.  It's about being allowed to practice your own religion as you see fit.

 

So I would not take a job in, say, an abortion clinic, because I don't believe in abortion.  I don't expect to be able to go to work at an abortion clinic and demand that abortions not occur when I'm around, so my religious sensitivities can be respected.  And if I was working for an OB/GYN who decided one day to start performing abortions, I would tender my resignation, because there is no way I have a right to tell them when, where, and how they can perform legal abortions.

 

I don't drink alcohol and would never intentionally take a job that involved serving it.  Nevertheless I have managed to be gainfully employed all my life so far.

[SKL]

Individual businesses do all kinds of good things, and good for them.

 

Many other countries expect, legally, far more from employers, as far as taking care of employees, and yet that have successful businesses and economies - sometimes more than the US does.  So it is a little difficult for those of us who have lived in such places, and see the benefits for society along with the fact that business still survives, to think it will mean the end of a healthy economic life.

 

I'm just saying it's a philosophical belief behind the relatively (slightly) lower amount of burdens placed on employers in the USA.  I'm not telling you that other countries need to do it.

 

[SKL]

Reasonable meaning it doesn't significantly impact other people, especially the employer.

 

When you look at that from the perspective of a country where reasonable means it would be not be onerous, and yet business still survives, that doesn't look all that generous. 

 

I don't think the question is which country is the most generous with workplace accommodations.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

  And if I was working for an OB/GYN who decided one day to start performing abortions, I would tender my resignation, because there is no way I have a right to tell them when, where, and how they can perform legal abortions.

 

That's one thing to do.

 

"But another would be to say, I don't want to assist in these, because of my faith.  My freedom of religious expression means that you should try to accommodate me.  If that is not possible, then we will need to separate."

 

I think that that is a reasonable, and a very American approach.  

[EmseB]

You have to draw the line somewhere.  Things are always very tight on airplanes - space, crew flexibility, time.  Accommodations are going to be harder to give in that environment than most others.  People need to accept that and deal with it.

 

This is true, but we also live in a country where women are able to serve on submarines in the Navy because accommodations are made for shared living spaces.  It doesn't get much tighter and mission-essential than that. 

[SKL]

That's one thing to do.

 

"But another would be to say, I don't want to assist in these, because of my faith.  My freedom of religious expression means that you should try to accommodate me.  If that is not possible, then we will need to separate."

 

I think that that is a reasonable, and a very American approach.  

 

And they would say, "since you are a nurse [let's say] and I don't plan on hiring extra nursing staff just to accommodate your religion, I guess we'll have to separate."

 

[Carol in Cal.]

And they would say, "since you are a nurse [let's say] and I don't plan on hiring extra nursing staff just to accommodate your religion, I guess we'll have to separate."

 

Maybe, and maybe not.  The point is that the request is reasonable, and it is protected by law, and sometimes it does result in accommodation.

[EmseB]

Well, I didn't say any of those things, but here is what I am saying.  Religious liberty is not about being able to take any job you prefer and demand every change you want.  It's about being allowed to practice your own religion as you see fit.

 

So I would not take a job in, say, an abortion clinic, because I don't believe in abortion.  I don't expect to be able to go to work at an abortion clinic and demand that abortions not occur when I'm around, so my religious sensitivities can be respected.  And if I was working for an OB/GYN who decided one day to start performing abortions, I would tender my resignation, because there is no way I have a right to tell them when, where, and how they can perform legal abortions.

 

I don't drink alcohol and would never intentionally take a job that involved serving it.  Nevertheless I have managed to be gainfully employed all my life so far.

 

I too would quit in that scenario.  And there may be scenarios where a lone nurse for a single practitioner may not be able to work there because the job specifically requires her to assist in abortions.  However, there may be other cases where a nurse says their conscience prohibits them from assisting in abortions and they work in a large practice with a lot of OBs, a lot of different jobs and she could manage to do a myriad of other tasks which earn her wage and assisting in abortions is not necessary.  Which is why blanket statements about quitting are not helpful.  Every case is going to be different.

[SKL]

This is true, but we also live in a country where women are able to serve on submarines in the Navy because accommodations are made for shared living spaces.  It doesn't get much tighter and mission-essential than that. 

 

The Navy is a US Government operation, so it is subject to different rules and expectations than a private business.  And enabling women to serve is at a different level than allowing a person of a given faith to be a small-plane flight attendant that doesn't serve alcohol IMO.

[Carol in Cal.]

The other problem with making blanket statements about quitting is that it puts the onus on the employee to quit in a situation like that, which is unreasonable.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Maybe, and maybe not. The point is that the request is reasonable, and it is protected by law, and sometimes it does result in accommodation.

It may not be reasonable, as it requires other staff to take my on extra duties. The larger the staff, the more likely the request may be considered reasonable. In a hospital, a transfer to another unit may be offered.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The Navy is a US Government operation, so it is subject to different rules and expectations than a private business. And enabling women to serve is at a different level than allowing a person of a given faith to be a small-plane flight attendant that doesn't serve alcohol IMO.

Correct. In the case of women in submarines, the women are being accommodated so they can perform the same tasks.

[SKL]

I don't know that it's unreasonable though.  I've quit several jobs and never felt like the employer should have been required by law to change for me.  I might think they are wrong and stupid, but it's generally not illegal to be wrong and stupid.  (Well, except where equal pay/promotion was concerned in my case - but that usually wasn't my reason for leaving.)

 

I have helped some people sue their employers over discrimination.  Promoting a less-capable guy over a more deserving woman, paying women less than men, disparaging them in front of others about their non-job-related health issues (i.e. obesity).  I've fought for fairness in the workplace many times.  Won some, lost some.

 

I am not against people asking for accommodations.  But it sounds like this lady has exhausted her reasonable remedies and yes, the onus is on her to make a change.

[Carol in Cal.]

It may not be reasonable, as it requires other staff to take my on extra duties. The larger the staff, the more likely the request may be considered reasonable. In a hospital, a transfer to another unit may be offered.

No, making the request in view of a change of responsibilities is always reasonable.  

You are writing about whether the accommodation is reasonable or not, which I have already stipulated may or may not be the case.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, making the request in view of a change of responsibilities is always reasonable.

You are writing about whether the accommodation is reasonable or not, which I have already stipulated may or may not be the case.

Requests aren't always reasonable.

[Carol in Cal.]

Requests aren't always reasonable.

No, but requests in view of a change of assigned responsibilities always are, which is what I actually said.

 

Again, accommodating those requests is not necessarily reasonable, but making them is.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I disagree.

[SKL]

Well, as they say, there is no harm in asking, especially if you've already decided that you're going to quit if they won't accommodate.  Taking them to court if they don't say "yes" is not reasonable in the cases discussed here IMO.

[marbel]

No, but requests in view of a change of assigned responsibilities always are, which is what I actually said.

 

Again, accommodating those requests is not necessarily reasonable, but making them is.

 

I think I see what you mean - the job responsibilities change, so it's always reasonable to ask for an accommodation.  Such as, SKL's comments about working in a medical practice, and the doctor decides to start performing abortions.  Assisting in abortion has never been part of the job description, so it's reasonable to seek an accommodation because of that change.  Right?

 

I agree that it is always reasonable in those circumstances, with the understanding that the accommodation might still not be granted.

[TechWife]

 If serving alcohol were an essential or even primary part of her job I would totally agree with you.  If she was a bartender, I would totally agree with you.  If she was refusing to touch men, I'd agree with you.  

...

Unless I'm on a very tiny jet with one FA, I have not ever seen all FA's serving drinks on board.  Even with two on board, I see one serving, one passing out peanuts and picking up garbage.  It seems reasonable to me she could be the one with snacks and the other could be the one with drinks.

 

Having been in a position where I had to write job descriptions,  I know that It is up to the employer to determine what job tasks are essential for the employee to carry out, not the employee or the general public. There is a lot of language that must be excluded from a job description in order for the job to not be considered discriminatory. For example, it is discriminatory to require that it is essential that a person be sighted in order to do a job. That is not a function of a job. It is the task that must be declared essential.  So, you cannot say that a nurse must be able to see (an action). But, it is not discriminatory to dictate that a home health nurse have a) a valid driver's license (a qualification) so that they can drive to their patient's homes (a task)  b) no DWI convictions (a qualification) so that they can be covered on the company liability insurance (a legal requirement) and c) a valid nursing license (a legal requirement).  By default, you aren't required to hire a blind nurse as a home health nurse because the blind nurse cannot hold a valid driver's license. But the essential task is driving, not seeing. (as an aside, I doubt the nurse could get a valid nursing license if they were not sighted, but since there is so much telephone work available these days, I really have no idea if a nurse would, in fact, loose one, if they were to loose their vision after they earn their license).  Another ambiguous requirement is that an employee be required to "move something under 30  pounds" because there are a lot of ways to move things.  A different wording is that the employee be required to "lift 30 pounds unassisted." The difference between "move" and "lift unassisted" is what allows for cost effective home delivery of medium and large objects.  These job requirements must be determined in advance of hire and must be applicable to all employees in the same position in order to avoid the appearance of discrimination. However, this does not prevent the employer from modifying job requirements at any given time, nor does it prevent them from adding the ever present "other duties as assigned by supervisor" to a job description. 

 

In the airline industry, the airlines have determined that fight attendants serve alcoholic beverages and I expect it is worded as such in the job description as one of the essential duties of a flight attendant. As such, it becomes an "essential" part of that job. Is serving alcohol on an airplane, in the strictest sense of the word, essential? No, it isn't. The airplane will fly whether or not alcohol is served. However, the airlines have determined that alcohol will be served and have determined that the flight attendants are the one to do it. Now, this means that the flight attendant must be of legal age (a legal requirement) to serve alcohol (a task). It is not age discrimination to state this requirement, nor is it religious discrimination to determine that all flight attendants will serve alcohol because, again, the airlines have decided this an essential job task for a flight attendant. 

 

An employee cannot get hired and then decide he or she does not want to do the job they were hired to do and expect to keep their job.  Likewise, if an employee is hired to do a particular job, for example, as a pilot, and they are no longer able to do their job (for example, say they lost their vision in an accident), then the airline is under no obligation to allow them to remain in their position as a pilot.  This is not because the person is blind (that would be discrimination), but because the pilot would not be able to have a) a valid pilot's license and b) carry out tasks where a person must be sighted in order to safely complete them, such as landing an airplane manually. Perhaps the airline has another suitable job for the pilot, but if they don't, they aren't obligated to create one nor are they obligated to keep him on as a pilot. Likewise, if someone's faith has changed, as this woman's did, the airline is under no obligation to accommodate the new religion in the same job when it was previously determined, in writing, that the job requires her to serve alcohol. 

 

I have been on several flights where there are multiple flight attendants. The larger the plane, the more attendants there are. I think that the I've seen six or eight on an international flight. The thing about the design of aircraft is that the aisles are narrow and the carts block the aisles. This means that it is impossible for people to pass by the carts. How in the world is a flight attendant supposed to serve alcohol to someone on the other end of the plane when there is a cart in the way? It is simply not practical.

[TechWife]

I think I see what you mean - the job responsibilities change, so it's always reasonable to ask for an accommodation.  Such as, SKL's comments about working in a medical practice, and the doctor decides to start performing abortions.  Assisting in abortion has never been part of the job description, so it's reasonable to seek an accommodation because of that change.  Right?

 

I agree that it is always reasonable in those circumstances, with the understanding that the accommodation might still not be granted.

 

No, it's not. The doctor is the employer and as such, he is the one that decides what tasks his/her employees are to carry out. The employer can change a job description at any time. That's one of the differences between an employer and an employee. An employer decides what is to be done and an employee does it. 

[marbel]

No, it's not. The doctor is the employer and as such, he is the one that decides what tasks his/her employees are to carry out. The employer can change a job description at any time. That's one of the differences between an employer and an employee. An employer decides what is to be done and an employee does it. 

 

Right, I know there is a difference between the employer and the employee; I'm pretty sure every working person (or in my case formerly working person) does.   And I do recall on all my job descriptions the phrase you noted in your post above:   "other duties as assigned by supervisor."

 

But I still think that an employee, when faced with a change in job description, ought to be able to sit down with his or her employer in good faith and say "this is something I can't do for x reason; can we work something out?"   So in the example of the FA, if serving alcohol had been added to her job description after she had the job (it was not), there is no reason she couldn't go to her employer and say "you've added serving alcohol to my duties.  My religion forbids me doing that.  Is there a way we can work around this so I don't have to do that?" 

 

I can think of only one boss during my 20+ years of employment (and countless bosses) who I would not have felt comfortable asking. 

 

Doesn't mean I would expect them to grant an accommodation.  In fact I would expect that most would not.  I'd still ask, if it was important to me and I liked my job.

 

So why do you say it's not OK to ask?

 

[gardenmom5]

The other problem with making blanket statements about quitting is that it puts the onus on the employee to quit in a situation like that, which is unreasonable.

 

she was offered a job in a different dept where serving alcohol was not part of the job description.  she turned it down.

[Spryte]

she was offered a job in a different dept where serving alcohol was not part of the job description. she turned it down.

Yes, it sounds as though they did try to accommodate her.

[DragonFaerie]

Maybe, and maybe not.  The point is that the request is reasonable, and it is protected by law, and sometimes it does result in accommodation.

 

But if accommodation cannot be made that is acceptable to both employer and employee, and the employment relationship is severed, does the employee then need to go and sue the employer?  No.  That's ridiculous.

[DragonFaerie]

The other problem with making blanket statements about quitting is that it puts the onus on the employee to quit in a situation like that, which is unreasonable.

 

Why?  It's the employee who has the problem doing her job.  Why should that be the employer's problem?  Having a job is not a right.

[FaithManor]

Right, I know there is a difference between the employer and the employee; I'm pretty sure every working person (or in my case formerly working person) does.   And I do recall on all my job descriptions the phrase you noted in your post above:   "other duties as assigned by supervisor."

 

But I still think that an employee, when faced with a change in job description, ought to be able to sit down with his or her employer in good faith and say "this is something I can't do for x reason; can we work something out?"   So in the example of the FA, if serving alcohol had been added to her job description after she had the job (it was not), there is no reason she couldn't go to her employer and say "you've added serving alcohol to my duties.  My religion forbids me doing that.  Is there a way we can work around this so I don't have to do that?" 

 

I can think of only one boss during my 20+ years of employment (and countless bosses) who I would not have felt comfortable asking. 

 

Doesn't mean I would expect them to grant an accommodation.  In fact I would expect that most would not.  I'd still ask, if it was important to me and I liked my job.

 

So why do you say it's not OK to ask?

 

I do think that this is a nice approach when the job changes after the fact if one has a friendly boss with an open door policy, and if the hope is that there is a reasonable work around that makes it a win win for both parties, great, but no expectation that the employer should have to give a work around. To be honest, with a lot of bosses it is actually the manner of approach and expectation that speaks volumes about the likelihood that they will consider such a thing. That said, my husband's manager is of the type that you do what he tells you to do without question and never ask for a favor of any kind or your toast. Very militaristic and frankly, most of his managers in IT could not be described as friendly much less nice or even kind. 

 

In the case of the flight attendant, serving alcohol was a known before she converted. I think very likely what happened is that another crew member on one of the flights complained about having to switch positions with her or switch duties, and then when corporate reviewed the informal arrangement with other crew members realized it might leave the door open for worse situations to arise and that may have been when they offered her other jobs. Informal arrangements can be a real problem for companies if they allow them to go on under their noses without formalizing or approving them.

 

I just don't get why she didn't take the other positions. I mean, today it is alcohol, but it could easily be tomorrow not wanting to serve a meal that contains pork. Think about all of those salads with their bacon bits, the shredded pork sandwiches, the pre-made croissant/egg sandwiches that often contain some sausage or bacon, .....yikes....for her it could easily become a more complicated faith situation, and she was offered an out that didn't force her to quit! Seems rather illogical to insist on keeping a job that one knew before one started entailed x,y,z, and may entail a,b,c, in the future, when offered something else that would not conflict with her faith.

 

I really do not understand her position.

[Ausmumof3]

I, like abba grew up with a religion that could cause issues with work at times. We always tried to choose jobs within the framework of what we could do and if stuff came up make an effort to take on some other less desirable part of the job as a replacement. So - sorry I can't serve alcohol but I'll do your xyz duty. Hand out the sick bags, or take the row with screaming baby or whatever. So that the small inconvenience caused was made up for as much as possible.

[Arcadia]

I just don't get why she didn't take the other positions.

...

I really do not understand her position.

The other positions may not have free travel, hotel and flying allowances. As a chief stewardess, my girlfriend made a lot more money per month than as ground crew.

My girlfriend has an MBA and so when she was tired of flying was able to get a job of comparable pay.

[gardenmom5]

The other positions may not have free travel, hotel and flying allowances. As a chief stewardess, my girlfriend made a lot more money per month than as ground crew.

My girlfriend has an MBA and so when she was tired of flying was able to get a job of comparable pay.

 

the other positions DO have free personal travel.   if you retire from the airline - that is a perk that is kept for life.

 

hotels are ONLY for when working flights with overnight layovers.  not personal travel. (if she's not working as a FA - she doesn't NEED that perk.)

 

she wants it both ways - life doesn't work that way.  seriously if she wants to be a FA so badly, - she should go work for an airline that doesn't serve alcohol or non-halal meat. (as that is sure to be the next thing  about which she protests.)

[OnTheBrink]

Why do people take jobs that have duties that conflict with their beliefs? I get that sometimes you have to take whatever jobs are available, but being a flight attendant or an elected clerk are not "desperation" jobs. 

[Ausmumof3]

I guess the tricky bit is she took the job before she converted. Also being new to a faith, she probably has difficulty figuring out how figure out how her beliefs will play out.

[gardenmom5]

I guess the tricky bit is she took the job before she converted. Also being new to a faith, she probably has difficulty figuring out how figure out how her beliefs will play out.

 

so what.  I know a woman whose father was a Jesuit priest.  then he became a Mormon.  should he have been "accommodated"?  or just go find a job that wouldn't have been in conflict with his new beliefs?  (which is what he did.)

[Ausmumof3]

so what. I know a woman whose father was a Jesuit priest. then he became a Mormon. should he have been "accommodated"? or just go find a job that wouldn't have been in conflict with his new beliefs? (which is what he did.)

No not at all, i should have quoted that was in response to the post asking why she took the job. She already had the job.

[TechWife]

As far as I can tell, ExpressJet is unionized. I'm wondering what the union's position is on her request. Are job descriptions part of the agreement with the union? I am unfamiliar with the details of how union negotiations work and what they include. 

[TechWife]

i read a bit about the case.  easyjet has apparently made a number of attempts to accommodate her - including a jobs in an area where she would not have to serve alcohol (e.g. ticket counter, phone service.)  she turned them all down, she only wants to be a flight attendant.

 

 

 

Can you provide a link on this? I have tried to find it but can't and would very much appreciate it.

[gardenmom5]

Can you provide a link on this? I have tried to find it but can't and would very much appreciate it.

 

probably because it's expressjet -not easyjet.  my mistake.

most of the hits are only reporting what her lawyer has said.  with the airline's side of "we don't' comment on pending legislation."  I don't have time to do a thorough search.

I've cleaned my computer - so my history is wiped.

[Word Nerd]

Here's a pretty lengthy piece that touches on this case as well as the Kim Davis one and is worth reading.

[ErinE]

I think the CNN article has more details. She asked for accommodations June 1, the supervisor told her to coordinate with her coworkers, and on August 2nd, a coworker filed a complaint. So the accommodation was made for two months before another employee was upset with the burden. Some news reports are representing it as a two or three year accommodation, which in reality seems to be the time since her conversion.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/

 

It would be interesting to see the co-worker's complaint. If the co-worker also complained of her proselytizing, mentioning the book and headcovering may matter. I'm reminded of the saying, "One man pushes old ladies in front of buses; another man pushes old ladies out of the way of buses. Both men can be accused of pushing old ladies around." 

[FaithManor]

Individual businesses do all kinds of good things, and good for them.

 

Many other countries expect, legally, far more from employers, as far as taking care of employees, and yet that have successful businesses and economies - sometimes more than the US does. So it is a little difficult for those of us who have lived in such places, and see the benefits for society along with the fact that business still survives, to think it will mean the end of a healthy economic life.

Other cultures are much more willing to pay higher prices for goods and services so these bhsinesses can be profitable while taking care of employees. Americans want everything as cheap as possible with no thought to the long term effects of such a system.

[Guest]

I think the CNN article has more details. She asked for accommodations June 1, the supervisor told her to coordinate with her coworkers, and on August 2nd, a coworker filed a complaint. So the accommodation was made for two months before another employee was upset with the burden. Some news reports are representing it as a two or three year accommodation, which in reality seems to be the time since her conversion.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/

 

It would be interesting to see the co-worker's complaint. If the co-worker also complained of her proselytizing, mentioning the book and headcovering may matter. I'm reminded of the saying, "One man pushes old ladies in front of buses; another man pushes old ladies out of the way of buses. Both men can be accused of pushing old ladies around." 

 

Is that to say she converted two or three years ago and then developed an issue with alcohol shortly before June???

 

Oh man. I feel bad for her. She's so wrong and she's going to realize it and it's going to bite.

[Bluegoat]

No, it's not. The doctor is the employer and as such, he is the one that decides what tasks his/her employees are to carry out. The employer can change a job description at any time. That's one of the differences between an employer and an employee. An employer decides what is to be done and an employee does it. 

 

This is also why it is important to protect employees.  The power of employers means they can use that power in inappropriate and immoral ways, for example, by creating job "requirements" that really have another purpose.  This is no different than banning certain vehicles from a subdivision in order to keep out working class people.

[Bluegoat]

Other cultures are much more willing to pay higher prices for goods and services so these bhsinesses can be profitable while taking care of employees. Americans want everything as cheap as possible with no thought to the long term effects of such a system.

 

Yeah, this seems to be true.  It seems like a Catch-22 - paying people well, and making sure many people are able to work in stable positions, tends to mean a stable middle class, which is what will drive the economy.  If you don't have that, people don't have as much to spend, and so they want cheaper things, so the employers can't give the employees as much money or good benefits....

[Bluegoat]

Is that to say she converted two or three years ago and then developed an issue with alcohol shortly before June???

 

Oh man. I feel bad for her. She's so wrong and she's going to realize it and it's going to bite.

 

It sounds to me that she is going through what a lot of new converts do - "convertitu"s I have heard it called.  Not really sure yet how to make it all work for her.  I think its especially hard for people who are trying to figure it out on their own.

[Guest]

It sounds to me that she is going through what a lot of new converts do - "convertitu"s I have heard it called.  Not really sure yet how to make it all work for her.  I think its especially hard for people who are trying to figure it out on their own.

 

It sounds to me like she's not new enough to use that as an excuse (though it's kind to offer it for her) but rather has someone else's voice in her ear.

 

I can hear the voice, now.

 

If she were full of new convert zeal, she never ever would have gone 2, and definitely not 3, years without realizing Muslims have some things to say about alcohol.

[Carol in Cal.]

Other cultures are much more willing to pay higher prices for goods and services so these bhsinesses can be profitable while taking care of employees. Americans want everything as cheap as possible with no thought to the long term effects of such a system.

This is one of the reasons that I try to 'shop local' when I can, and also why I stayed with a (rather poor) CSA for as long as I did.

But Amazon is so handy...and so much cheaper...and the local bookstores that were my favorites have both closed, so now to get to a good independent one I have to drive 40 miles, so I don't shop independent bookstores exclusively anymore.  But I still do try. 

[TechWife]

probably because it's expressjet -not easyjet.  my mistake.

most of the hits are only reporting what her lawyer has said.  with the airline's side of "we don't' comment on pending legislation."  I don't have time to do a thorough search.

I've cleaned my computer - so my history is wiped.

 

Yes, I realized that and did a thorough search for Express Jet. I'm simply not turning up any information on the airline having offered her other positions. 

 

I realize the employer can't comment and hasn't so far, so I'm wondering if the info came from a reliable source (not questioning your reliability, but that of your source). 

[TechWife]

This is also why it is important to protect employees.  The power of employers means they can use that power in inappropriate and immoral ways, for example, by creating job "requirements" that really have another purpose.  This is no different than banning certain vehicles from a subdivision in order to keep out working class people.

 

Yes, that is true. That is why, as I stated earlier, job descriptions have to be written in a certain way. That writing not only protects the employer from unfounded discrimination charges,  it also clarifies job requirements for employees. Often employers will discover workplace practices that need to be changed simply through the act of revising job descriptions to eliminate discriminatory language.   I wrote extensively about the different ways that job descriptions can be worded. 

[TechWife]

she was offered a job in a different dept where serving alcohol was not part of the job description.  she turned it down.

 

I'd still like to see the reference for this assertion. It seems it is a critical piece of information that would be useful to the courts in determining if the airline made attempts to treat her fairly.