Oregon: Muslim immigrant refuses to shake infidel boss’ hand, then sues company for $1M


When the cultural jihad fails, step two is the legal jihad. Source: Islamic woman who wouldn’t shake male boss’ hand sues for $1 million after firing | OregonLive.com

A woman of Islamic faith who was hired as a case manager at Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare has filed a $1 million lawsuit against her former employer — claiming she was fired after she refused to shake the hand of a male boss, wore a head scarf on the job and asked for time to pray during the work day.

Sharmin Rahman’s lawsuit states that after starting her job on Dec. 1, 2014, she met a senior director, Royce Bowline. When Bowline tried to shake Rahman’s hand, Rahman declined by explaining that her faith prohibited her from shaking the hands of men, according to the lawsuit filed Friday in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

The suit claims that afterward, a female employee, Bethany Kuhn, questioned her about it, allegedly saying, “I was told that you did not shake Royce’s hand. Did you know that he is our boss?”

The suit states that Rahman responded, “Yes, but that does not change things. I can’t shake his hand.”

A spokeswoman for Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

“We strive to treat all employees fairly and equitably,” wrote spokeswoman Samantha Ridderbusch.

The nonprofit employs 900 people in the Portland area and greater Willamette Valley. It offers assistance to about 15,000 people each year who are homeless or have problems with addictions or mental health.

Rahman was born in Bangladesh and her ethnic background is South Asian, according to the suit. She speaks with an accent, but started learning British English when she was in kindergarten. The suit states that she has a master’s degree in social work.

She was fired on April 14, 2015 — and the reason listed was “Inability or Not Qualified,” the suit states. Rahman was given no warnings about her performance and hadn’t been disciplined before her firing, according to the suit.

Among allegedly discriminatory episodes in her 4 ½ months on the job, according to her lawsuit:

  • Rahman prayed up to three times during the work day in her locked office, with a sign hanging on the door that read “Do not disturb.” The suit states that although Rahman explained her need to pray, an employee who Rahman supervised interrupted her four times by knocking on her office door and then unlocking the door and entering the office.
  • At least twice, Rahman’s supervisor, Elizabeth Miller, asked her about whether the head and neck scarves she wore posed a safety problem because a client could pull on the scarf. Rahman responded by saying no one had touched her scarves before.
  • Rahman’s supervisor, Miller, offended her several times by watching her while she ate traditional foods from Bangladesh for lunch, according to the suit. Miller “derisively said ‘what are you eating,'” the suit states.
  • Although Rahman wasn’t told her accent was a problem when she was hired, Rahman’s supervisor and another employee, Kuhn, “parroted” the way she spoke English — prompting her to cry, the suit states. Kuhn expressed surprise she went to Portland State University and told her she should go back to school to learn English, according to the suit.
  • Miller and Kuhn told Rahman that she wasn’t able to keep up to date with technology because of her age. The suit says the pair “mocked (Rahman) because she typed with her index finger.” According to a report by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, Rahman was approximately 50 years old at the time.
  • The suit states that Miller would smoke during “walk-and-talk” meetings, despite Rahman asking her not to and requesting reasonable accommodation for her asthma.

Rahman is claiming not only religious discrimination, but discrimination based on her ethnicity, national origin and disability of asthma.

After her firing, Rahman complained to the state Bureau of Labor and Industries. An investigator there determined in July 2016 that Rahman hadn’t presented enough evidence to prove her case of discrimination based on religion or disability.

According to the investigator’s report, Cascadia said Rahman was having trouble using the organization’s software, wrote poorly constructed sentences and had been put on a “written warning with action plan” less than two months after her hiring.

The investigator also wrote that Cascadia defended itself by saying that Rahman didn’t complain about some alleged incidents, including that she was interrupted during prayer or that her supervisor made a funny face while looking at her lunch.

Read the BOLI report here.

The suit seeks up to $500,000 in noneconomic for humiliation, anxiety and distress. The suit seeks $500,000 for economic damages that include past and future lost wages and benefits.

Rahman also is seeking her job back.

Portland attorneys Daniel Snyder, Carl Post and John Burgess are representing Rahman.

Read the lawsuit here.

Importing Muslims who refuse to assimilate is the first mistake. Hiring them is the second.

PS: One has to wonder if the apparently unqualified and incompetent woman – based on the findings – was hired for fear of being accused of discrimination. Either way, Cascadia and its employees are learning about Islam the hard way (as is the last 15 years weren’t enough).

Nebraska: Fired Muslim meatpackers lose religious discrimination lawsuit

Source: No religious discrimination found in 2008 JBS Swift dispute | omaha.com

In a case that alleged mistreatment of Somali Muslim workers, a federal judge in Omaha ruled last week in favor of the JBS Swift meatpacking plant in Grand Island and against the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The suit was filed by the EEOC on behalf of close to 80 JBS employees who were fired on Sept. 19, 2008. They alleged religious discrimination in the suit, which was filed in 2010.

U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp found no evidence of a discriminatory motive.

The dispute began with requests by Somali Muslim employees for religious accommodation involving breaks for prayers.

Dissatisfied with the progress of those talks, a group of Somali Muslim employees refused to work on Sept. 16, 2008. Two days later, a group of Hispanic employees refused to work.

On Sept. 18, 2008, JBS management told employees that the next group of employees that refused to work would be terminated.

Later that night, JBS terminated about 80 Somali Muslim employees who refused to go back to work. That group included four of the individuals who brought the suit — Shamsho Abshir, Tufah Hassan, Abdiaziz Jama and Shukri Wais. Some of the employees were allowed to return to work when it was found they had not actually walked out the previous night.

The events that triggered the suit occurred during Ramadan in 2008.

On Sept. 12, 2008, JBS management and representatives of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local No. 22 met with representatives of JBS’ Somali Muslim employees. Those representatives said Muslim employees desired a mass break at sunset in order to perform their maghrib prayer.

Several accommodations were discussed, including changing meal times to coincide with prayer times.

Ultimately, JBS representative Dennis Sydow told Muslim representatives that JBS could not meet their requests because he believed the requests violated the meal-time requirements of the employees’ collective bargaining agreement.

After meeting further on Sept. 15, 2008, JBS executives told the Muslim employees that they could not meet their requests, citing productivity and safety concerns in allowing a large number of employees to leave the line at the same time. They also cited the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement.

That day, a large group of Somali Muslim employees gathered outside the JBS facility to protest the company’s refusal to accommodate their prayer requests. They refused to report for work that day and Sept. 16.

On the afternoon of Sept. 16, JBS management, union officials and Somali Muslim representatives met to discuss prayer accommodations. An agreement was reached that for the remainder of Ramadan, the B-shift meal break would be a mass break at 7:45 p.m. The shift would be shortened by 15 minutes to seven and three-quarter hours. As part of the agreement, the employees who failed to report for work on Sept. 15 and 16 would have a letter placed in their files.

JBS sent a notice to union representatives stating that further work stoppages could result in termination. The lawsuit’s claimants denied they ever received notice from union officials.

On Sept. 17, a large group of employees, many of them Hispanic, walked off the job and refused to return to the production floor. B-shift operations were canceled that night due to a lack of employees.

The next day, several hundred Hispanic workers on the A shift walked off the job or refused to begin work to protest the company’s decision to provide religious accommodation to the Somalia Muslim employees. In order to get the plant operating and avoid a shutdown, JBS management decided not to implement the agreement for the 7:45 p.m. mass break and returned the meal break to its original time.

The company then told employees, through their union leadership, that the next group of employees that refused to work would be terminated.

That night, a group of Somali Muslim employees began to engage in a loud demonstration in the cafeteria to protest JBS’ decision to rescind the break-time agreement. Police were called when approximately 70 to 80 Somali Muslim employees remained in the cafeteria at the end of the meal break.

The employees who did not return to work that night were fired.

They may have lost the lawsuit but they got a lot of sharia accommodations:

Muslim employees fired after Islamic prayer breaks abused, police oversee

EEOC says CO plant must submit to more Islamic sharia law

Nebraska meat plant cedes prayer time to Muslims

Nebraska meat plant sued for Muslim prayer time

Michigan: Terror-linked CAIR & DOJ Shakedown Township for $1.7M to Build Islamic School

The citizens don’t want a massive Islamic school that will teach hatred of non-Muslims and other dictates of the Koran and sharia in their neighborhood, nor all the negatives that come with it (traffic, parking and eventually a mega mosque). But the DOJ is forcing Islam on America. The results will not be pretty for future generations. And it all stems from mass immigration (legal and illegal) and refugee resettlement of Muslims.


CAIR is a named terrorist group. Source: Michigan Township to Pay $1.7 Million to Islamic School for Banning Its Construction

A Michigan township will pay an Islamic school $1.7 million as part of a settlement reached after a majority of the planning commission voted against a Muslim group’s request to build the facility.

Earlier this week, Pittsfield Township agreed to pay the sum of $1.7 million and allow the Michigan Islamic Academy to begin construction of a 70,000-square-foot school.

Pittsfield agreed to the settlement which was reached after two lawsuits were filed against it by the U.S. Justice Department and the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

In a statement released Thursday, CAIR-MI said the settlement is one of the largest ever settled based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

“We welcome the settlement with Pittsfield Township and hope the outcome of this case will serve as a deterrent to other municipalities throughout the country seeking to deny Muslim institutions the right to build or expand their facilities on the basis of religion,” stated CAIR-MI Legal Director Lena Masri.

In August 2011, the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission rejected in a vote of 3-2 a request by the Islamic Academy to build a school in the area.

“About 125 residents attended and about 50 spoke during public comment. Most of those opposed to the plan stressed that they have no issue with the school being Islamic, but said their concerns centered around traffic, children’s safety and the school being inconsistent with the master plan,” the Ann Arbor News reported in 2011.

Later in October 2011, the Pittsfield Township Board of Trustees voted unanimously to affirm the recommendation from the planning commission to reject the rezoning request of the Islamic Academy.

In February 2012, the Islamic Academy and CAIR filed a lawsuit against Pittsfield in district court, accusing the Township of violating their religious liberty under RLUIPA.

The Justice Department eventually filed a suit against Pittsfield in October 2015, with U.S. District Attorney Barbara McQuade writing in a statement that they filed the lawsuit “to protect the right of all Americans to practice their religion and receive the religious instruction and education of their choice.”

“This complaint alleges that Pittsfield Township denied the Michigan Islamic Academy’s request to build a school in violation of that law,” continued McQuade.

“The law prohibits the government from imposing land use regulations that substantially burden religious exercise unless there is a compelling government interest and uses the least restrictive means of doing so.”

Township Supervisor Mandy Grewal said in a statement earlier this week that the board’s decision to reach a settlement on the two lawsuits does not mean that the Township admits to wrongdoing.

“The township and the board of trustees emphatically deny any wrongdoing, discrimination or violation of law,” stated Grewal, as published Thursday by the Detroit News.

“The township’s position from the beginning was and continues to be about protecting existing residents in this region from land uses that were not originally envisioned when they purchased their homes.”

Hillary Clinton will continue the transformation of the U.S. into a Muslim nation at a rapid pace.

Vermont: DMV Saw Something, Said Something, Got Sued for $40K

There should be rewards given to those who report illegal aliens and visa scofflaws. Instead, Vermont is issuing drivers licenses to illegals and running a kangaroo court named the Human Rights Commission.

Source: Man settles $40K discrimination lawsuit with Vermont DMV – WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

MONTPELIER, Vt. – A Jordanian man will get $40,000 from the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles in a discrimination settlement. Abdel Rababah has lived in southern Vermont for years with an expired Visa. Two years ago, he applied for a driver privilege card. He got the card, but a DMV investigator tipped off U.S. Immigration Enforcement. The American Civil Liberties Union took up his case before the state Human Rights Commission.”This case represents the state of Vermont trying to use enticing people to apply for driving privileges, to make our community safer, but then turning it around and trying to, on the other hand, treating them as criminals which they are not,” said Jay Diaz, ACLU for Vermont.

Rababah was (maybe still is) in the country illegally. Just because he was here illegally for years doesn’t make him legal.

DMV officials said staff members did not follow correct procedures and the incident happened shortly after the driver privilege card was created by lawmakers to help undocumented workers. Part of the settlement calls for the DMV to change the license application, as well as provide training to staff including anti-discrimination training.

The ACLU continues its work for the ummah.

Glenn Beck Defies Clinton-appointed Judge’s Order to Out Confidential Source of Watch-listed Saudi

The Obama, and soon-to-be Clinton administration – with Beck’s help – will not tolerate exposing Saudi terror links.

So far, Beck’s team has not complied but this has case could have major implications. Source: Glenn Beck producer defies judge’s order to name sources – POLITICO

A producer for conservative media host Glenn Beck is declining to comply with a judge’s order to identify the sources for reports accusing a Saudi Arabian student of involvement in the deadly bombing at the Boston Marathon finish line in 2013.

U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris, acting on a defamation suit brought by Saudi Abdulrahman Alharbi, instructed Beck, two of his producers and related companies to come forward by Wednesday with the names of the sources for the accusations Beck persisted in leveling even after senior U.S. officials publicly cleared the student.

However, a lawyer for Beck’s operation and producer Joe Weasel said Wednesday that he will not name the sources, previously identified as veteran officials of the Department of Homeland Security.

“Defendants cannot disclose the identities of Confidential Sources 1 and 2 for several compelling reasons. First and foremost, as a matter of fundamental journalistic integrity, Defendants cannot disclose the identities of the Confidential Sources without their authorization,” attorney Michael Grygiel said in a letter to Saris on Wednesday afternoon.

Grygiel said the sources were told of the judge’s demand, but “were unwilling to be identified,” despite the fact that Saris said she would keep their names out of the court record and bar those involved in the litigation from revealing who the sources are.

Beck’s lawyer also appeared to echo a public claim by Beck this month that the sources could be harmed, or possibly even killed, if they were publicly named.

“As previously represented to the Court, Defendants are justifiably concerned that substantial harm could come to the Confidential Sources if they are identified. Second, if Mr. Weasel were to disclose the identities of the Confidential Sources, it is a near certainty that no confidential sources would ever again speak to Mr. Weasel or The Blaze Inc. and its affiliates, to the detriment of an informed public,” Grygiel wrote.

The letter says Weasel worked for The Blaze “at the time” of the 2013 marathon reports, but it does not say if he still works for the firm or for Beck. A Beck spokesman did not immediately respond to a query on the point.

Weasel’s refusal to name the sources creates the possibility that he could be held in contempt of court and jailed, although Weasel is not a defendant in the case so there could be more legal hoops to jump through to go after him personally. Saris could impose fines on The Blaze Inc. or take action to limit the company’s defenses in the lawsuits, such as instructing a jury that it could infer that the sources did not exist.

It seems less likely that Beck would be held in contempt personally because Grygiel’s letter says the host had no contact with the sources “and could not identify” them.

It’s unclear whether mainstream journalists and other First Amendment advocates who have fought to protect sources in other instances will rally around Beck and Weasel as the judge mulls what action to take in the fight involving the polarizing conservative commentator.

In his letter, Grygiel asked Saris to set a conference to discuss what sanctions should be imposed due to the failure to comply with the judge’s order.

An attorney for Alharbi, Peter Haley, declined to comment on the development.

Saris joined the court in 1993 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton.

Alharbi was not your average Saudi Muslim in the U.S.

More via “Innocent” Saudi has ties to several Al-Qaeda Terrorists.



Ohio Civil Rights Commission Rejects Complaint Over Muslim Police Cadet’s Hijab


Muslim refused to cooperate with Commission personnel. CAIRorists lose!

Source: FFA – Ohio Civil Rights Commission rejects and repudiates CAIR-OH complaint that Columbus Police unlawfully denied Muslim right to wear hijab while on duty, UPHOLDS police department’s values neutral dress code.

Ohio Civil Rights Commission rejects and repudiates CAIR-OH complaint that Columbus Police unlawfully denied Muslim right to wear hijab while on duty, UPHOLDS police department’s values neutral dress code.

Florida Family Association sent out several email alerts that asked people to send emails to encourage Ohio Governor and Civil Rights Commission to uphold Columbus Police Department’s “values neutral dress code” for law enforcement officers.  More than 15,000 people sent emails to each commissioner and the governor.

The last email alert, sent out on August 1, 2016 prompted the Ohio Civil Rights Commission to send a copy of their July 28, 2016 Letter of Determination regarding CAIR-OH’s complaint to Florida Family Association.

Subject:    RE: Ismahan Isse CAIR complaint
Date:    Tue, 2 Aug 2016 12:47:59 +0000
From:    Payton, Michael
To:    David Caton

August 2, 2016

Dear Mr. Caton,

Upon the conclusion of our investigation, our Commissioners voted 5-0 on July 28th to dismiss the charge of discrimination based on No Probable Cause to believe the law has been violated.  I will send you an electronic copy of our Letter of Determination in this matter in a separate email today.

G. Michael Payton
Executive Director

The Ohio Civil Rights Commission Letter of Determination:

•    Affirms the Columbus Police Department’s values neutral dress code.
•    Reports the Muslim cadet never asked to wear a hijab and was therefore not terminated for such issue.
•    Denies all discrimination allegations made by CAIR-OH affidavit.

Portions of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission Letter of Determination are provided below.

“On August 20, 2015, Charging Party, Council on American Islamic Relations, Ohio (CAIR-OH), filed an affidavit with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission alleging that Respondent, City of Columbus, Division of Police, engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices.   Specifically, CAIR-OH filed a sworn charge alleging a female police cadet, Ismahan Isse, was forced to resign because the police division did not allow her to wear her religiously mandated hijab (headscarf) while on duty.  CAIR-OH concurrently alleges Respondent placed a hiring ban on persons who wear a religious headscarf and therefore discriminated against Muslim women due to their sex and religion.

Despite repeated attempts, the Commission was unable to interview a material witness, Ms. Isse, who refused to cooperate with Commission personnel.  Based upon the investigation, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission finds that there is insufficient information to establish that Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Ms. Isse on the basis of sex or religion.

While witnesses did confirm Ms. Isse expressed concern over the inability to wear a hijab, there is no evidence to suggest Ms. Isse was terminated, constructively discharged or even resigned specifically because Respondent did not allow here to wear the headscarf while in police uniform.  Without Ms. Isse’s direct testimony, the Commission must credit Respondent’s witnesses on this point.  The witnesses stated Ms. Isse never asked to wear a hijab and did not seek a reasonable accommodation of her religious beliefs.  Each witness confirmed Ms. Isse resigned prior to becoming a sworn police officer, citing purely personal reasons for the resignation.

CAIR-OH also alleges Respondent placed a ban on hiring Muslim women.  The Commission’s investigation confirms Respondent does – in fact – hire Muslim women, which is most readily evidenced by the fact that Respondent hired Ismahan Isse.  Therefore, the Commission’s investigation uncovered no evidence to substantiate there is a ban on hiring Muslim women.

The Commission also examined general allegations concerning the alleged discriminatory application of Respondent’s policies.  While Respondent did confirm that Ms. Isse was not permitted to wear a headscarf, there is no evidence to suggest she was targeted due to her sex or religion.  Respondent is a para-military organization.  Respondent has a neutral “Professional Appearance Policy” (Policy No. 11.01).  This policy provides that division personnel shall only wear authorized uniform garments.  Policy, p.1)  Deviations from the Appearance Policy must be approved in advance through the chain of command.  (Policy, p.5)  Further, Respondent’s witnesses confirmed that religious insignia, such as head coverings, may not be visible on sworn officers while in uniform.  Respondent states deviations from the Appearance Policy are categorically denied.  Sworn peace officers are mandated to wear designated organization-issued uniforms and emblems for uniformity, safety, and neutrality, which Respondent emphasizes is germane to the position held, despite an employee’s sex or religious affiliation.

The Commission could find no evidence suggesting employees of one religious preference are favored over another.  Nor could the Commission find evidence that Respondent treats males differently from females.  There is no evidence to suggest that Ms. Isse requested to wear the hijab as an accommodation of her religious beliefs and was consequently denied.  Nor is there evidence to suggest Respondent allowed non-Muslim peace officers the ability to wear headscarves, hats or head coverings, other than those defined in the Professional Appearance Policy, which are permitted only for tactical or weather-related purposes.


Based on the investigation conducted in this matter, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission has determined that there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE for the Commission to issue an administrative complaint accusing Respondent of an unlawful discriminatory practice.  Consequently, the Commission hereby orders that this matter be DISMISSED.

Colorado: Labor Dept Rules Muslim Workers Who Quit Deserve Unemployment Benefits


If a non-Muslim quit, or perhaps refused to bake a cake rather than “choose between fidelity to their religion and their job,” they’d lose their job and their business, not collect benefits. Obama would see to it.

Source: Fired Muslim workers deserve unemployment benefits from Cargill, Colorado labor department rules – The Denver Post

Colorado’s labor department has ruled that more than 100 Muslim workers fired from a Fort Morgan meatpacking plant are eligible for unemployment benefits because a company cannot force workers to choose between their religion and their jobs.

The workers filed for unemployment payments after they were fired in December by Cargill Inc., amid a dispute over whether the Muslim employees could take prayer breaks during their shifts. Cargill challenged the claims, but the company withdrew its appeals this summer after losing 20 cases, officials with the state Department of Labor said.

While the labor department declined to put a dollar amount on the total paid to the workers, Cher Haavind, the agency’s director of government, policy and public relations, said the average maximum benefit per claim was $8,841.

That means the payments could cost Colorado’s unemployment fund nearly $1 million. Unemployment benefits are funded by the state’s employers. Much like an insurance policy, a company’s rates rise with the number of claims filed from its former workers.

Cargill’s spokesman, Michael Martin, said the company had no comment about the unemployment claims. Cargill, based in Wichita, Kan., is one of the largest privately held companies in the United States, and its family includes 14 billionaires, according to a 2001 report in Forbes magazine.

Cargill fired more than 150 Muslim workers, most of them from Somalia, in December after they walked off the job because of the dispute.

At the time, Martin told The Denver Post that the company did everything it could to resolve the dispute.

“At no time did Cargill prevent people from prayer at Fort Morgan,” Martin said in December. “Nor have we changed policies related to religious accommodation and attendance. This has been mischaracterized.”

However, decision orders written by Colorado labor department hearing officers show a change in policy is what led to the walk out.

Throughout the hearings, workers told a similar story about how supervisors began informing them on Dec. 15 that prayer breaks no longer were allowed, according to documents obtained by The Denver Post.

The workers, many of whom could not read or speak English, told hearing officers that interpreters had reviewed employment policies upon their hiring, including a “Political and Religious Workplace Expression Policy.”

The policy said that employees could pray as long as business needs were met, and they should request religious accommodations through their supervisors. The workers said they understood they could pray but would not always be able to go when they wanted.

In one case, a woman who had worked at the plant since February 2012 told a hearing officer that she had never been denied an opportunity for prayer until Dec. 15.

It was normal for the woman to wait a few minutes for the supervisor to make sure the line was sufficiently staffed before approving a prayer break for a group of three people. The woman would use her paid 15-minute break to pray, the decision order said.

“The claimant was satisfied with the prayer arrangement,” the order said.

However, the woman said she asked for a prayer break on Dec. 15, and her supervisor told her she would be allowed to go the bathroom, but that if she wanted to pray, she had to go home, the decision order said.

“There was no piece of paper or policy sheet issued to the employees saying that the prayer policy had changed,” the order said.

The Muslim workers said that their religion requires that they pray five times per day to stay in favor with God.

The hearing officers repeatedly ruled that the change in prayer policy was substantial to the working conditions and was not favorable to the workers. Therefore, the workers were not at fault for losing their jobs.

The decision orders repeatedly said: “No person should be expected to choose between fidelity to their religion and their job.”

After the workers were denied their prayers, leaders in Fort Morgan’s Somali community negotiated with the company for change. When the workers were told the company was standing by its new policy, they went home. After not reporting to work for three days, Cargill fired them.

The decision orders also revealed tension between the Somali workers and their representatives in the Teamsters union, which is led by Hispanic workers. The union did not fight for the Somalis, the orders said.

[Comments by terrorist group CAIR removed]

The attorneys have filed a complaint on behalf of the workers to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Rachel Arnow-Richman, director of the workplace law program at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law, has been watching the Cargill case.

The state unemployment decision has no bearing on any federal religious discrimination lawsuit that later might be filed, Arnow-Richman said, because lawyers cannot use those results in their arguments in federal court.

However, Cargill’s attorneys should be concerned, she said. The labor department’s decision shows that a neutral party hearing the facts of the case was sympathetic toward the workers.

“Cargill is going to have to steel itself for a serious fight if it wants to continue the federal discrimination case,” Arnow-Richman said.

The labor department is far from neutral. They only interviewed the Somali Muslims who have legal teams the average American could never afford and have been coached to say whatever is necessary to get more money from the filthy kuffar.

Truthfully, it couldn’t happen to a better company. Cargill deserves all the agony and financial losses they get for choosing cheap, foreign Muslim labor over American workers. Cargill will fold like a cheap Muslim prayer rug and bow down to their Muslim masters as they have many times already.

Islam means submission, not peace.

%d bloggers like this: