Colorado: Federal jury rules against Muslim workers who sued airport company

via Federal jury in Denver rules against Muslim workers who sued employer – Denver Post  h/t: Islamist Watch

A federal jury Thursday rejected claims by Muslim women that they were discriminated against for clothing required of them by their faith — including head scarves — by a ground services company at Denver International Airport.

The eight jurors also ruled, after almost three weeks of trial, that JetStream Ground Services did not deny the women accommodations because of their religion or retaliate against them.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the company in 2013 claiming JetStream violated the civil rights of the Muslim women by refusing to hire them or firing them or reducing their hours if they were religiously observant.

JetStream offers ground services for airlines including cargo, freight, mail handling, aircraft maintenance and cabin cleaning.

The EEOC suit sought back pay and compensatory damages for plaintiffs Safia Abdulle Ali, Sahra Bashi Abdirahman, Hana Bokku, Sadiyo Hassan Jama and Amino Warsame.

The case was heard in U.S. District Court in Denver.

JetStream attorney Raymond Deeny said in court the company does not discriminate against women but had to lay off numerous employees when the company lost a contract with DIA.

Diane King, one of the lawyers representing the women, told jurors during the trial that it was up to them to send Jetstream a message to obey the law.

Andrew Volin, another attorney on the JetStream team of representation, said the company’s owners — who were in court Thursday — had no comment on the jury’s decision.

An attorney for the women who sued JetStream also declined to speak about the verdict and said they were exploring their appellate options.


Related:

Muslim prayer room at Denver Airport separate from room for Christians and Jews

 

New Jersey: Islamic society wages legal jihad over denial to build mosque in residential area

Source: Islamic society sues over denial to build mosque in N.J. | NJ.com

An Islamic community has filed a federal lawsuit against Bernards Township, the township committee and its planning board, saying they manufactured excuses to deny it the right to build a mosque.

The suit was filed by the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge and its president, Mohammad Ali Chaudry, against the township and 15 individuals on the township committee and planning board. Chaudry is a former mayor, member of the committee and board of education member, the suit says.

Township Administrator Bruce McArthur said all township personnel have been advised not comment publicly about the litigation.

Mayor Carol Bianchi did issue a statement:

“Bernards Township is an inclusive and warm community.  The allegations in the lawsuit do not represent our community. It is not unusual for an applicant to appeal a denial, and it is their right. The Planning Board made its decision and now the court will decide whether to uphold that decision.  We look forward to  a satisfactory resolution of this matter.”

The lawsuit comes about three months after planners unanimously rejected the society’s application to build a mosque on a 4.3-acre site on Church Street. Planners said the application was based on a “lack of details” regarding parking, traffic safety and buffer zones bordering the site’s residential neighbords.

Planners frequently agreed with “one unreasonable and picayune land use objection after another” raised by opponents, even though a house of worship is a permitted use on the site, the lawsuit says.

It says opponents were “coached” to phrase their opinions “through the permissible language of land use: parking, buffer and screening requirements, storm water management, and so on.” Opponents, it says, also were warned not to state objections toward Muslims or their faith itself.

The society filed its application for preliminary and final site plan approval for a 4,252-square-foot mosque in April of 2012, the suit says.

What followed was “pronounced hostility” from the community and objections manufactured by the planning board, it says. Residents said they feared the mosque could host potential terrorists and warned that Islamic law must be opposed, the suit says.

Additionally, a citizens group formed expressly to oppose the mosque lobbied throughout the township, it says.

After the society filed its application, the township committee amended the zoning ordinance to make new houses of worship difficult, if not impossible, to build, the suit says.

The society spent more than $450,000 to get approval of its site plan, the lawsuit says.

The suit charges that the defendants violated their rights to freely practice their religion and that they made arbitrary land-use decisions.

It seeks judicial orders to overturn the denial of the society’s application to develop the site, invalidate the restrictive sections of the zoning ordinance, appointment of a federal monitor and compensatory damages, among other things.


Where did the Islamic society get half a million dollars for a site plan? Now check out this headline also in New Jersey:

Fundamentalist Muslims Set Sights on N.J. Town and Angry Residents Resist…oh wait, here’s the real title: Orthodox Jews Set Sights on N.J. Town and Angry Residents Resist. The media would never put a headline like that stating Muslims were setting their sites on any town although it’s happening across the U.S.

Related:

New Jersey: Mosque lawyer demands city ignore fire officials’ concerns

Muslims turning residential NJ home into mosque for 150+

Muslims plan to raze house to build mosque in residential NJ neighborhood

NJ: Preserve Liberty Corner! Mosque continues zoning jihad

Wisconsin Manufacturer Won’t Negotiate with Terrorist-linked CAIR

Well played. Every organization threatened by the terrorist groups like CAIR should do the same. Yes, that’s right, the Council on American Relations or CAIR was named a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates.

CAIRdiorama32via: Manufacturer Stands by Policy on Muslim Prayer Breaks – ABC News

An American-Islamic civil liberties group is asking a Wisconsin manufacturer to back away from a policy that doesn’t allow an extra break for prayer for Muslim employees.

Ariens Co., however, said Tuesday that it can handle the matter internally and that it’s not interested in negotiating through the Council for America-Islamic Relations.

CEO Dan Ariens said the prayer breaks were disrupting production at the lawn mower and snow blower manufacturer, which employs about 2,000 people, nearly half of them in Brillion. He said the best solution was to schedule break time and “stay within the policy of two, 10-minute breaks.”

Ariens says it has had longstanding religious accommodations for Muslim workers, including a prayer room. Ariens said the two-break policy isn’t new and that it was discussed during employee orientation. He said none of the workers have been fired and that he also wants to find a resolution that will allow them all to come back to their jobs without hindering production. He said the employees are valuable and would need to be replaced if they left.

Ariens said the company’s position is reasonable and legally sound. He said that if the prayer breaks were only five minutes each — and his supervisors tell him they’re often longer — then it would cost the company about $1 million annually.


Of course, Ariens wouldn’t even be in this position if hadn’t hired Islamic supremacist Muslim refugees rather than American workers. 

Previously: Wisconsin: Muslim prayer breaks result in declining production, company now has to enforce policy

 

Colorado: Terror-listed CAIR shakes down Cargill again, hiring policy changed for Muslims

And they still want more to pray for the destruction of the kuffar. Laws and rules for Muslims, and laws and rules for everyone else.

2016 is off to a blazing fast start for the murderous jihadists and their suit and tie-wearing co-religionists who wage a different type of jihad…but both for the sharia. On Jan. 1 we asked, “How much further will Cargill go to appease Muslim supremacists?”

The first submission of the year comes via: Cargill changes hiring policy following dispute involving Muslim workers – StarTribune.com

Cargill will change its hiring policy — allowing employees to be potentially rehired 30 days after termination, not 180 days — in response to a walkout by Somali workers in Colorado.

After a dispute over Muslim prayer time, about 150 employees at Cargill’s sprawling Fort Morgan, Colo., plant didn’t show up for work for three days — grounds for termination. They were fired. Some of those workers claimed they weren’t allowed to take prayer breaks, while Cargill claimed that it was still following its policy allowing the breaks.

Minnetonka-based Cargill said in a statement Friday that it will change the hiring policy at all of its North American beef plants, allowing former employees terminated for “attendance violation or job abandonment” to be considered for rehiring 30 days after being fired. The workers would have to reapply for their jobs.

“We believe the change in our beef business policy related to how quickly a former employee may be eligible to reapply for positions at our beef plants is a reasonable update to something that’s been in place for quite a few years,” Cargill Beef President John Keating said in a statement.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been representing many terminated Somali workers, said it welcomed Cargill’s change in hiring policy, though it criticized Cargill’s prayer break policy as ambiguous.

Jaylani Hussein, CAIR’s Minnesota executive director, said in a statement that there has been a “pattern of hostility” to prayer accommodation requests at Fort Morgan.

Cargill refuted that, saying in a statement that “the vast majority of religious accommodation requests are routinely granted during each of the plant’s two weekday work shifts.” The breaks, which are granted based on production line staffing, are not guaranteed and are not part of the meal and break periods outlined in Cargill’s contract with Teamsters Local 455, the company said. Teamsters representatives have not returned requests for comment.

Cargill, the largest U.S. private company, is one of North America’s largest beef producers, operating eight major plants, including six in the United States, which together employ 18,000 workers. The Fort Morgan plant slaughters cattle and produces boxed beef.

Since the Somali workers were terminated, it’s been “challenging” to run the Fort Morgan plant at full speed, Martin said. “We’re operating at significantly reduced capacity on the second shift.”

While Cargill has hired some people since the walkout, the labor pool isn’t large in Fort Morgan, a town of about 12,000 people.

Over the past few decades, U.S. meatpacking plants — including in Minnesota — have increasingly relied on immigrant communities for labor. About one-third of Cargill’s workers at Fort Morgan are immigrants, or come from immigrant families from Africa, and are predominantly Muslim. Much of the rest of the workforce there is of Hispanic descent.


As Refugee Resettlement Watch notes: Cargill caves to CAIR, will allow Somali workers to reapply for jobs in 30 days

It all boils down to the fact that ‘Big Meat’ doesn’t want to pay higher wages and so they have become completely dependent on refugee labor.  In the meantime, they are changing the face of rural America.

They can get away with cheap wages as long as the federal government (and their resettlement contractors) continue to bring them fresh refugee laborers every year.   While they get away with paying low wages, you supplement the refugee family’s income with welfare payments!  What a business model for the meatpacking industry.


Related submissions to sharia by meat plants:

Why companies and the media still associate with the known terrorist group CAIR baffles the mind. Some background via Rogues gallery of terror-tied CAIR leaders.

NYPD submits, will pay $2M in legal fees to Muslims, remove terror report from website

Will de Blasio appoint a Muslim from one of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked litigation jihadists to spy on the NYPD for Muslims? via: NYPD will yank terror report from website to settle case over spying h/t Ed

The city has agreed to more stringent regulations on anti-terror cops in ­order to settle two federal lawsuits that claimed the NYPD violated constitutional rights by spying on Muslims.

The city will pay $2,033,416 in legal fees to the plaintiffs, but no monetary damages, and will add another layer of review to a committee that monitors its intelligence gathering. The NYPD will also remove a 92-page report, “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” from its Web site.

And the department agreed to formalize spying rules that it says are already in place — such as not considering “race, religion or ethnicity” motivating factors in investigations.

“New York City’s Muslim residents are strong partners in the fight against terrorism, and this settlement represents another important step toward building our relationship with the Muslim community,” Mayor de Blasio said in a statement.

The mayor will appoint a lawyer who has never worked for the NYPD to a five-year term to monitor the committee that oversees intelligence inves­tigations.

“That person will sit in on the meetings, review materials and if that person has any concerns that the NYPD are not complying with the current guidelines . . . can and must go to the police commissioner and bring their concerns to his attention,” Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters Larry Byrne said, adding: “And if they’re not satisfied with the discussion with the police commissioner, they can and must go to the mayor.”

The appointee could also take his or her concerns to a federal judge.

But a police source said that kind of meddling could be dangerous.

“That could put lives at stake if we’re waiting for a civilian to make a decision about what we’re about to do,” the source said.

Or for the civilian to leak information to the terrorists and their defenders – CAIR, ISNA, Muslim Advocates, etc.

“A terrorist isn’t going to wait for him to go make his complaints. He’s going to go blow up a train station or some s–t.”

The suits were filed over police surveillance on Muslims as part of a broad effort to prevent terrorist attacks after 9/11.

The settlement adds restrictions on surveillance set by the court-ordered “Handschu decree,” which was put in place in response to surveillance used against war protesters in the 1960s and ’70s. The NYPD relaxed the ­decree after 9/11 to give cops more power to monitor political activity in public places.


Related:
Muslims forced the NYPD to reword the report
NYPD_Report-Radicalization_in_the_West (pdf)
NYPD Cop Killer Worked for US-based Muslim Group ISNA

Ireland: Pastor not guilty of ‘grossly offensive’ remarks about Islam

…McConnell “should never have been in court in the first place”.

“The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) need to explain why this case was brought and assure everyone that this will not happen again.”


Source: Pastor McConnell not guilty of ‘grossly offensive’ remarks about Islam – BBC News

Evangelical Christian preacher Pastor James McConnell has been found not guilty of making “grossly offensive” remarks about Islam.

The 78-year-old, from Shore Road in Newtownabbey, County Antrim, denied two charges relating to a sermon he gave in a Belfast church in 2014.

A judge said while he considered the remarks offensive, he did not consider them “grossly” offensive under the law.

Supporters of the pastor applauded when the verdict was given.

Speaking outside Belfast Magistrates’ court, Mr McConnell said his only regret was the response from the Muslim community that he was “out to hurt them”.

He said: “There was no way I was out to hurt them. I wouldn’t hurt a hair on their head.

“But what I am against is their theology and what they believe in.”

He said he would do it again, but would be conscious that he was “hurting innocent Muslims”.

Mr McConnell had denied two charges – improper use of a public electronic communications network and causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network.

He made the remarks at the Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle in north Belfast in May 2014. His sermon was also streamed online.

During the trial, Mr McConnell said that he still believed in what he had preached, and did not go into church to “provoke anyone”.

A prosecution lawyer had said his words were not “a slip of the tongue”, while a defence lawyer said he should not be convicted.

Judge Liam McNally told the court he did think the pastor’s passion in preaching meant it “had caused him to lose the run of himself” and advised him to consider the impact of his words in future.

However, he concluded that the words upon which the charges were based, while offensive, do not reach the high threshold of being “grossly offensive”.

“The courts need to be very careful not to criminalise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive,” he said.

“It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances.”

The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) MP Sammy Wilson and Catholic priest Fr Patrick McCafferty appeared as character witnesses for Mr McConnell.

Speaking on BBC Radio Ulster’s Talkback programme, Mr Wilson welcomed the news, saying Mr McConnell “should never have been in court in the first place”.

He said: “Anyone who is engaged in public debate or speech ought to be happy at the result today.

“We live in a free society and in a free society, people should be free to express the beliefs that they hold.”

He added that if Mr McConnell had accepted a police caution, it would have introduced “a chill factor” into issues of public speech.

Peter Lynas, of the Evangelical Alliance Northern Ireland, said the verdict was “a victory for common sense and freedom of speech”.

“However, until the law is changed or clear guidance is issued there will still be concern about further prosecution,” he added.

“The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) need to explain why this case was brought and assure everyone that this will not happen again.”

Boyd Sleator of Atheist Northern Ireland said: “His (Mr McConnell’s) comments were offensive but we are allowed to be offensive and I would never want to see anybody prosecuted for being offensive. His comments were idiotic, his comments were silly,” he said.

In a statement, the PPS said “it was clear from the judgement that the court considered Pastor McConnell had a case to answer and that the decision on whether the comment was offensive or grossly offensive was not only finely balanced but one for the court and the court alone to take”.

“The decision to bring this prosecution was entirely consistent with the duty of the PPS to put before the court those cases in which it is considered there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction.”h


Muslims and their sharia are creeping in Ireland – click here to read our archives.

Ohio: Court Rules Against Muslim Teacher Who ‘Blatantly Violated’ School Policy

A rare victory against Islamic supremacists in 2015. Via Appeals Court Rules Against Muslim Instructional Aide in Ohio District

A federal appeals court has ruled against a Muslim cleric who was dismissed from his job as an instructional assistant in an Ohio school district after he disregarded orders to stop leaving school early to conduct prayer services at his mosque.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, ruled unanimously against the instructional assistant even though it found he had made a facial case of First Amendment retaliation over comments he had made about the district.

The plaintiff, Abdurahman Haji, was hired as an instructional assistant at a Columbus middle school and worked in an English-as-a-second-language classroom that mostly served Somali students.

Haji claimed that district officials retaliated against him after he spoke out at his mosque and elsewhere about practices at middle school that offended him, court papers say. In 2007, he gave a lecture at his mosque complaining that the teaching of Greek mythology at the school was exposing Muslim students to a polytheistic belief system. The lecture was uploaded to YouTube, and school officials became aware of it by March 2008.

In another incident, Haji complained to a parent that he had seen a teacher hugging a Somali girl in a way that was inappropriate for a Muslim female.

School officials had given Haji permission to leave early on Fridays to conduct religious services at his mosque. But in April 2008, they rescinded the permission, telling Haji he could no longer leave the campus early without permission.

Haji left school early on two occasions after the change, and he was dismissed by the district.

He sued the school district on claims of First Amendment retaliation and religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

He lost in a federal district court in Columbus, and in a July 16 decision in Haji v. Columbus City Schools, the 6th Circuit court affirmed.

The appeals court said Haji made out his facial case of retaliation over his speech because district officials had clearly changed their tune about accommodating his early departures from school soon after they learned of his lecture critical of the school.

“The temporal proximity between the defendants’ discovery of the YouTube video and Haji’s termination, combined with the rescission of the [early-departure] agreement, could lead a jury to conclude that the video and Haji’s termination were causally connected,” the court said.

But that was not the end of the matter, the court continued, because even if an employee establishes that his protected conduct was a motivating factor behind his termination, an employer is not liable if it can show that it would have made the same employment decision even if the employee had not engaged in the protected activity.

The record clearly shows that the defendants terminated Haji for blatantly violating the attendance policy,” the court said. “The defendants warned Haji several times to follow the policy in April 2008, but Haji continued to leave early without signing out each Friday.”

On the religious bias claim, the 6th Circuit panel said Haji failed to make out a facial case that the district treated him differently based on his Muslim faith.


More via Muslim Teacher Loses Claim School Violated His Free Speech Rights and Discriminated Against His Religion :: The Legal Project

Briefly, Haji’s practice was to leave school early every Friday in order to lead prayers at his mosque.  On his departure, he would not sign out from school.  Usually, he would return to school after services, but if they ran long he would not return.

In 2007, Haji gave a lecture at his mosque in which he identified himself as a school employee and expressed “concern that the school was exposing Muslim students to the polytheistic belief system of Greek mythology.”  The video was uploaded to YouTube, and school officials learned of it from a student who told them Haji was “saying bad things about the school.”

Haji also complained to parents because female Somali students were not covering, were filmed dancing, and because he had observed a teacher (presumably male, although the opinion does not say) hugging a female Somali student “in a manner that he deemed inappropriate for a Muslim girl.”  Haji was suspended for a day for insubordination.

Around this time, school officials began to complain that Haji’s early departures were interfering with his job.  Haji was told he could no longer leave early without obtaining prior permission.  He ignored this requirement and was fired.

Haji filed a wrongful discharge suit claiming violations of his First Amendment rights (protected by Section 1983 of Title 42), Title VII, and Ohio state law.  The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the school and dismissed Haji’s claims.  He appealed.

Last Thursday, the appellate court issued an unpublished opinion upholding the decision of the trial court.  Basically, the court said even if the school were retaliating for Haji’s comments, that’s ok, because the school had legitimate grounds to fire him, namely, his failure to comply with the attendance policy.  That was true even though the school had not enforced its policy before Haji made his comments.  Haji’s claim of religious bias under Title VII also failed, because he could not show that non-Muslim critics of the school were treated more favorably than he.

The opinion is, as noted, unpublished, which is a device courts often use for opinions on which they spend less time and attention than published opinions, and they often may not be cited as support in later cases.


If you or someone you know needs legal help against Islamic supremacism or if you’re a legal professional able to join the fight, you may want to Participate in the Legal Project. Check out the other legal resources linked on the left side bar under the Legal Help section.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55,544 other followers

%d bloggers like this: