The ExpressJet Flight Attendants lawsuit filed in September 2015 by Stanley, a Muslim flight attendant, is not a simple matter of factual and legal reasoning. Stanley claims that she was fired from her job because she wore a headscarf and carried a book of “foreign writings.” According to Stanley, the right to practice one’s religion should be respected and no one should have to choose between their career and their religion.
Stanley filed a complaint against ExpressJet in September 2015
Stanley filed a complaint against ExpressJet in September 2015 after the airline denied her religious accommodation request. The airline was cited as violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on religion. Stanley also claims the airline refused to provide her with a reasonable accommodation based on her religion, which made her job more difficult. ExpressJet has not yet commented on the complaint, but it values diversity.
The airline denied the Muslim flight attendant her request to serve alcohol, despite knowing that her religion prohibited serving alcohol. Stanley had previously approached ExpressJet Airlines and requested an exception to the rule for Muslim flight attendants. She was told to work it out with other flight attendants. This arrangement has worked for years, but she was suspended from her position in September 2015. Stanley is now suing for back pay. Her complaint was dismissed, but ExpressJet has declined to comment on specific personnel matters or ongoing litigation.
Her request for an accommodation violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, refused to accommodate the ADA-compliant needs of an African-American woman. The motel was strategically located near Interstates 75 and 85, two major U.S. highways. Its clientele was 75% out-of-state, making the hotel a victim of interstate commerce. Even before the Act was enacted, however, there was racial discrimination at the motel.
The law is the foundation of modern civil rights activism. It was enacted in 1964 to protect individuals from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or national origin. It inspired the women’s movement, spawning the National Organization for Women. In addition to empowering civil rights activists, it also protected older Americans, people with disabilities, and pregnant women. Despite its history, it is a great example of civil rights activism and its impact on everyday life.
Her retaliation claim lacks a legal or factual basis
An employer may be liable for retaliation in a Title VII retaliation case only if the employee has a legitimate interest in punishing an employee for a violation of the law. The plaintiff, a female flight attendant, sought a transfer from her previous position after an on-the-job injury. Her complaint alleges retaliation and discrimination. The district court dismissed her claims for retaliation and discrimination because she failed to establish a prima facie case.
Her request for an accommodation violated the CBA
In the United States, a federal judge has ruled that an employee’s request for accommodation would violate the CBA if it would deprive the employee of seniority, a guaranteed job preference, or any other benefit than a collective bargaining agreement or national labor policy may provide. Although seniority systems are often used as grounds to deny religious accommodations, that does not automatically disqualify the CBP from providing them. An employee can request a substitute shift, for example, if she and another co-worker cannot make it during the same time. If she does need to miss work due to religious practice, the employer can consider swapping shifts with her co-workers or hiring another supervisor to cover her shift.
Her claim of retaliation is based on a lack of protected activity
An Airline workers’ lawsuit claims that the company dissuaded its flight attendants from taking medical leave and refused to pay unused vacation time, despite their right to do so under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The airline also failed to notify departing employees of their right to continue their health insurance coverage. Plaintiff Grace Erica Bothwell filed suit against ExpressJet on Thursday, claiming that the airline violated her FMLA rights and failed to timely give her notice of her right to remain on the payroll.
A plaintiff filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that his supervisor was intolerant of her race and national origin. The district court denied her Title VII retaliation claim, ruling that her employment actions constituted discrete acts that were barred by statute. Although she had filed a timely complaint to the EEOC, she could not prove that her actions had been retaliatory.