Rastafarian stands ground on faith

[rug]

WAYNESBORO -- Christopher Woodson laid the $30,000 check on the coffee table in the small living room of the small house he shares in Waynesboro with his wife and two of his three daughters.

Another child, a son, is due in December. If current plans hold, his name will be Christopher Lion Woodson.

Woodson, 34, said the money -- from a settlement with a Botetourt County company that wouldn't hire him because he refused to cut his long hair -- will pay bills and perhaps help promote the music of the band for which he sings, Righteous Friendz.

Reggae music by Toots and the Maytals played in the background from cable TV. Most art objects around the shade-darkened room reflected African origins or themes.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/297757

Sweet & Dandy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_St8Kbo4uwU

[onager]

1. More dread woo...

Meet Michael Morey, another Rastaman wanna-be.

Mr. Morey, a broke, unemployed, alleged musician, agreed to smuggle cocaine from Ecuador to Spain.

When his new employers saw his dreadlocks, they hauled him to a barber shop. Since, unlike Mr. Morey, they were not complete idiots.

Mr. Morey tried to make a religious case for keeping his dreads, claiming they were his "spiritual antennae." His bosses knew they were also Cop Antennae and insisted on him Doing The Samson. After his haircut, Morey buried his dreads to "return their energy to the earth." Or something like that.

The haircut didn't help much, and Mr. Morey got busted going thru Spanish Customs.

He ended up on the TV show "Banged Up Abroad." Shown in the USA as "Locked Up Abroad," probably to avoid a frivolous lawsuit from the American Family Association for exposing delicate American ears to the word "banged."

You can see a clip of him at the link below.

AESTHETIC WARNING: the actor playing Morey is wearing - by Official Internet Poll - the "Worst Fake Dreadlocks Ever." You can see his real hair poking out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkP-wrmIZVY

[rug]

2. Policing woo must be exhausting.

Here, this will pick you up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJDWGnnJDQM&feature=related

[onager]

4. I'm not the Woo Police.

Good thing, too. Oprah and Deepak would be doing life with no possibility of parole.

I don't have to police anything. More like I can't help tripping over the woo.

re the You Tube clip: I'll say one thing for Rastafari - it almost makes $cientology look rational:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari_movement

[darkstar3]

3. Extortion.

He got that settlement money not because he was right, but because the legal fees involved in fighting this case would have skyrocketed if the case had continued through the system. The EEOC was out of bounds here. The business's explanation was spot on. They most certainly would have lost business. When your company sends its employees into people's homes, you can never overestimate the amount of prejudice you have to deal with from your customers. Your people have to maintain their appearance even more meticulously than many office workers, because homeowners will turn away people for any damn reason at all.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Company policies on appearance are put in place for a reason, and if a candidate can't or won't conform to those policies, and an equally qualified candidate will, then the second candidate should rightfully get the job. And if you disagree with that, let's try a parallel problem:

A newly certified pharmacist puts in for a job at the local drug store. This drug store has a long-standing policy in place that scripts will be dispensed as written unless contra-indicated by drug interactions. It is clearly stated in this company policy that pharmacists employed at this drug store will not refuse to fill prescriptions based on their own personal feelings. If this newly certified applicant is a Catholic who believes it is wrong to dispense birth control, should the drug store be forced to hire them? Should the drug store be forced to change their policy? Has the drug store engaged in religious persecution?

[rug]

5. Nice opinion but here are the facts.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-21-10c.cfm

[darkstar3]

6. That's the opinion of the EEOC, not the facts.

They have an opinion, the business has an opinion, the law was unable to decide which of them was correct and truthful. I will say that it is completely ridiculous for the EEOC to claim that this business "refused to hire a job applicant because of his religion." They have absolutely no proof that this decision was based on religion rather than long-standing company policy on employee appearance.

So now that we have dispensed with the ridiculous notion that religious intolerance is the fact in this case, have you nothing more to say in reference to my post above?

[rug]

7. Let me see, the EEOC investigated the complaint, established facts, but it's their opinion.

You read a post, saw a person received a settlement for religious discrimination, and call it extortion.

Who shall I rely on?

:dilemma:

[darkstar3]

8. The EEOC created a federal case in which the facts were not determined and a hung jury resulted.

They were one side of the story, advocating specifically for the man who claimed persecution, and the business was the other side. The settlement is in no way indicative of "rightness" or "fact." It simply shows that the business was spending more on legal defense than it would have taken to pay the guy to go away.

[rug]

9. "created a federal case"?

Do you know how the EEOC operates? Do you know they respond to complaints? Do you know how they investigate complaints? Do you know their standard of probable cause? Do you know what happens before a case is filed in district court? Do you think they are unwitting conspirators with this man looking for a job moving furniture in a scam against this innocent business?

You assume a lot with very little evidence.

It's clear your sympathies lie more with the hapless business.

BTW, the EEOC standard is discrimination not "persecution".

[darkstar3]

10. You take issue with my verbiage?

Did they file in federal court? Were they the originators of the case? Yes and yes, ergo, they created a federal case.

And I do know how the EEOC operates, and in this case they were clearly mistaken. The web page you linked to earlier shows a clear assumption on their part regarding the supposed reason for the rejection of this man's application. They jumped too soon, they couldn't make their case, and they dishonestly claimed victory over religious discrimination when he got a settlement check designed to make him stop bleeding their business dry.

Do you believe that a person should be allowed to apply for a job they cannot or will not do and then claim discrimination?

[rug]

11. I take issue with your entire opinion.

"ergo, they created a federal case" is the most ignorant legal opinion I've heard since Yoo wrote memos for Bush.

OK, you go on thinking the EEOC was mistaken. And I'll go on thinking you are. I'll just have to live with it.

(As an aside, since nowhere in this story is it represented that he coould not or would not do the job, I'll let your red herring swim away.)

[darkstar3]

12. He could not, or would not, conform to the standards of the business.

By your logic, the business should conform to the standards of any religious person who wishes to work there.

Let's back off the argument from authority that you're working on (The EEOC says it, so there) and let's try this: Why don't you demonstrate how this company's longstanding policy was specifically discriminatory against religion?

[rug]

13. How much of the article did you read?

"In June, during a trial held in federal court to consider religious discrimination allegations filed by him and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against a regional company, he tucked and tied his long hair and beardlocks in a head wrap -- which he had said he'd have been willing to do to get the job he was denied.

"I came to court that way to show what could have been done," Woodson said. "I would have done everything they wanted me to do."

[darkstar3]

14. I read that part. I also read how it didn't conform to company standards of neatness.

Having had a few friends in the same boat, I know why. But of course, as usual, you didn't answer the question.

Why don't you demonstrate how this company's longstanding policy was specifically discriminatory against religion?

[rug]

15. Here's your homework.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

You will be graded on neatness.

[darkstar3]

16. Dodging the question. That page is about general rules.

I want a specific analysis from you about how this company policy in any way constitutes religious discrimination. So far your only argument is a fallacious appeal to authority.

If you can't be bothered, then good evening.

[rug]

17. Seems pretty specific to me.

Pssst, it's reasonable accommodation.

"Religious Accommodation/Dress & Grooming Policies
Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts)."

[darkstar3]

18. Psst, no it's not.

"unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business."
"If it would not pose an undue hardship, the employer must grant the accommodation."

It's about whether the accomodation would be "more than a minimal burden" or an "undue hardship". The business certainly believed that it would, and the EEOC disagreed. A jury was unable to make a decision.

[rug]

19. The minimal burden on this poor company must habve been more than $30,000.

Plus attorney fees.

[darkstar3]

20. False. Read the story.

They spent over $400k fighting this, and when it resulted in a hung jury, they clearly realized that any appellate process would be even more costly, so they cut him a check. The $30,000 figure had absolutely nothing to do with what the company might have lost by hiring him, and everything to do with the following calculation:

$to_shut_him_up <= $they're_willing_to_pay < $cost_of_further_legal_defense.

Your entire argument here is predicated on fallacy. Appeal to authority and post hoc ergo propter hoc chief among them.

[rug]

21. Where to begin?

First there is no "appellate process" after a hung jury. There's a new trial.

Second, they stood to lose much more if they did not consent to a court decree. The punitive damages alone could exceed what they had already spent. Besides, they wanted to continue their discrimination.

"Lawrence could have been on the hook for a lot more than $30,000 based on the EEOC’s original court filings, which called for payment of back wages with interest, compensatory and punitive damages and additional relief."

http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/296424

Third, they had to end the discrimination and revamp their hiring and employment practicres,

"The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 5:10CV 97) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Harrisonburg Division. A trial was held on June 9, 2011, that resulted in a mistrial after the jury could not agree on a verdict. Afterward, the parties reached a voluntary settlement embodied in a consent decree filed in the case.

"In addition to monetary relief for Woodson, the consent decree requires that Lawrence Transportation provide significant remedial relief, including:

•being enjoined from further discriminating against employees on the basis of their religion;
•implementing written policies and procedures for its work sites prohibiting religious discrimination;
•distributing a copy of its written anti-discrimination policies and procedures to all current and future employees;
•posting a notice at its work sites informing employees that the company intends to comply with all aspects of the law by not discriminating further against any employee or applicant because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability; and
•providing anti-discrimination training to all managers, supervisors and employees at all five of the company’s locations.

“'Employers need to understand their obligation to balance employees’ needs and rights to practice their religion with the conduct of their business,' said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. 'Where there is minimal impact on the business, those religious needs must be accommodated. No person should ever be forced to choose between his religion and his job.'"

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-16-11f.cfm

I'm sure they agreed to this because they were blameless extortion victims.

I don't know which is worse, your invention of facts or your defense of these scumbags. Maybe you just agree with the teabaggery of the company president that this is a case of heavy handed government regulation.

Regardless, despising religion is not a pass to defend discrimination.

[darkstar3]

22. Oi.

Again you parse for verbiage. Fuck that.

As for the consent decree:

1. It contains exactly zero references to the company's grooming policy.
2. It goes out of its way in legaleze to avoid explaining how the company in any way participated in religious discrimination.
3. It's easy to agree to anti-discrimination policies when you are not engaged in discrimination, especially if it means you don't have to spend more in legal fees.

I don't know which is worse, your blind denial of the possibility that this accomodation is not within the realm of reasonable, or your desparate and repeated attempts to paint me as a teabagger when all I have done is refuse to buy your bullshit.

I suggest in the future that you and those who might agree with you give thought to the fact that those who cannot do the job should not apply for it.

And I don't despise religion, I despise using it as a tool for your own personal gain, as was done here. (Of course, we've already had that conversation wrt to priests, haven't we?)

ETA: You still don't understand how your argument is fallacious, do you? Have you at all analyzed this case on your own, or is everything you have to say a copy and paste from the EEOC's advocacy of this man?