Minnesota: “In a landmark settlement that could change the way Muslims are treated in the workplace, St. Cloud-based Gold’n Plump Inc. has agreed to allow Somali workers short prayer breaks and the right to refuse handling pork at its poultry processing facilities.” The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had sued Gold’n Plump Poultry, Inc., along with an employment agency that worked with it, charging religious discrimination and retaliation on behalf of the Muslim workers. The employment agency had required applicants to sign a form saying that they would not refuse to handle pork products if the occasion arose at work. (Chris Serres, “Somalis win prayer case at Gold’n Plump”, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sept. 10). “The timing of the [paid] added [prayer] break will fluctuate during the year so as to coordinate with the religious timing for Muslim prayers.” The two companies between them also agreed to pay $365,000 as part of the settlement. (Sept. 10; EEOC news release; via Workplace Prof Blog).
12 Comments
The breaks do not strike me as an “extra benefit”, as long as this is not new time off, but rather a division or structuring of the break they are already required to receive. I do have a problem with the “no pork handling” if that is part of the job.If they were told at the time of hiring that it was a (possible) requirement of the position then they accepted that as a condition of employment.
Why wouldn’t this effectively open the door for pharacists who refuse to hand out birth control or “the abortion pill” for religious reasons to make the same claim?
I wonder if I could use the same logic to withhold taxes from the government. I have a moral objection to supporting people who do not work and business that are not profitable.
As a matter of curiosity, why does the handling of pork arise at a poultry plant? Is there some new “pig chicken” that I haven’t heard about?
Obviously, the meat packing plant handles pork products as well as chicken. What I don’t get about this ruling is where the line is drawn. If the job involves handling both pork and chicken products, does the employee’s religous affiliation force the employer to hire someone who cannot perform all of the functions of the job? What would happen if a vegetarian Buddhist were to apply?
The significance of the monetary part of this settlement is hard to evaluate without knowing the number of class members. This number is notably absent from the EEOC press release. I’m guessing it’s a pretty big number, and they get only a few thousand each from this settlement.
Religious accommodation caselaw is fairly employer friendly (especially compared to disability accommodation cases). An accommodation is not required if it imposes more than a de minimis burden. I think it’s reasonable to assume that pork-handling is only an uncommon occurrence at this poultry processing facility.
This means that 1) plaintiffs may well have prevailed; and 2) the non-monetary settlement doesn’t really have much impact on defendants.
The breaks do not strike me as an “extra benefit”, as long as this is not new time off, but rather a division or structuring of the break they are already required to receive.
From the EEOC press release:
Under the decree preliminarily approved in the Gold’n Plump case, the employer will add a paid break during the second half of each shift which — in addition to a break early in the shift and lunch breaks otherwise required by applicable law — will accommodate the religious beliefs of Muslim employees who wish to pray during the course of the work day.
So, does this mean that the Muslim workers can be asked to work straight through Christmas holiday? I understand that there would be extra considerations for supervising them, keeping the plant open, etc. but if you are so religious as to demand daily breaks, than why should you also enjoy the days off that Christian holidays allow?
A few things:
The company is a chicken processor that occasionally handles pork. Pork products are not its primary business. I’ve not found anything to explain when or why or how often it processes pork, but that is not its main line of business.
The EEOC reports says the number of employees who will share out the monetary award is ‘between 40 and 80’. I assume this is because some employees are claiming particular kinds of damage.
Adding an extra break for prayer by Muslims should be accompanied by an additional 5-10 minute break for non-Muslims during the workday. If not, then there is indeed ‘preference’ being shown toward one religion.
Christmas holidays are defined by law or contract most of the time. The laws take no account of the religion of the worker in requiring holiday bonus pay. Many non-Christians take advantage of this and put in to work on Christmas to get the extra pay. Not surprisingly, non-Muslims in Muslim-majority countries do the same for Islamic holidays.
John,
Thanks — I’m not sure how I missed the reference to the number of class members in the EEOC press release. 40 – 80 is slightly smaller number than I expected. Also, I’m guessing the variance is so big because many of the class members were applicants through the employment agency that weren’t hired because they indicated they would not handle pork. There is a good possibility many of them won’t be found.
Also, as I read the release, the added break is for all employees — it’s just timed to coincide with muslim prayers.
[…] Hasanali Khoja, a Muslim chef employed by London’s Metropolitan Police as a catering manager, has filed a discrimination claim after being asked to prepare breakfasts with pork sausages and bacon, saying he had been assured he would not have to handle the meat products. (David Barrett, “Muslim police chef claims religious discrimination over sausage and bacon breakfasts”, Telegraph, Nov. 2). The Minnesota meat-packing case discussed earlier is here. […]
[…] Muslim meat packers that demanded pork-handling exemptions and prayer breaks. here […]