BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

Burger King Fired Pentecostal Teen Who Refused To Wear Pants, Lawsuit Claims


McShan says that she explained in her Burger King job interview in August 2010 that her religious beliefs require strict adherence to Scripture, which for her meant that as a female she had to wear skirts or dresses and never pants. Her interviewer, a manager at the local franchisee, Fries Restaurant Management, purportedly told her that a skirt was completely fine, and hired her as a cashier. But when McShan showed up for orientation soon after at a Burger King in Grand Prairie, Texas, a different manager allegedly told her that the skirt was unacceptable and she had to leave.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/08...est=latestnews

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

Skirts are not modest enough I guess. Way back in the day, a new convert was allowed to wear a skirt over pants as a carhop.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

I wonder what other religions have that particular dress code? And if they would be allowed to dress that way at BK?

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

I hope she and her parents filed a lawsuit.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

Yes. It is such a small request to allow this young lady to wear what her beliefs require.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

Yikes. This doesn't seem Scriptural.
Go get a job somewhere else.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103609096/...ant-Management



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONEQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY }COMMISSION, }}Plaintiff, } CIVIL ACTION NO.}v.

} 3:12-cv-3169}}FRIES RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, LLCd/b/a BURGER KING } JURY TRIAL DEMAND}Defendant. }_______________________________________________ }NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to correctunlawful employment practices on the basis of religion and to make whole Ashanti McShan.The Defendant violated Title VII by failing to accommodate Ms. McShan
’s religious beliefs,
which subsequently resulted in her termination.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331,1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and
(3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (“Title VII”), 42
U.S.C. Section2000e5(f)(1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981A.2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are being committedwithin the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

pretty simple. If this can exist everywhere what job?

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103609096/...ant-Management slam dunk win

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

I am sure BK will have another reason for firing her, or not hiring her.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

Where are all the cries against BK for violating someone's civil rights?

Just in from BK. Bacon sundae....

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

Because muslims are all peace loving happy people who do no wrong unless provoked by evil westerners...

...and Christians are evil women hating neanderthals... just ask the left.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

BTW that thing looks gross.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

"And they could neither buy nor sell, without that they had the mark..."

I don't think that the Spirit would counsel a lawsuit...
it is against Scripture.
Although, one represents the system they operate under,
and that is certainly a "legal" right.

As to the last, let the Spirit be your guide, also,
and don't flinch at the answer.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

Same thing happened to me in 1980 with Godfather's Pizza. I mean almost EXACTLY the same thing. I filed suit with the American Civil Liberties Union. I won. All I wanted was the money back that I had spent on clothes and shoes for work. I got that PLUS wages from the day I was hired until the day I turned down the job they were required to offer me. I also received a copy of the "new" policy outlining the NON-discrimination regarding dress.

I would not have been cleaning or climbing or dealing with machinery so wearing a skirt was not an issue of modesty or safety.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

I think she has a legitimate complaint.

I don't agree with her beliefs about the right and wrong of wearing a skirt or dress instead of pants but if that is her belief and she was told it was OK and was subsequently denied the job, I think she has a legitimate complaint.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

Let's really muddy this up some!

What if the owners of Fries Restaurant Management, the BK owners there, were CHristian people. Wouldn't this girl's lawsuit then be a clear violation of scripture since we are not supposed to sue fellow CHristians in secular court?

ON the flip side, at least this girl and her parents weren't being typical suing dirtbags and attempting to get millions of dollars from the company via lawsuit.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

If they were baptized believers that were under the leadership of a Godly pastor, I honestly don't think this'd be an issue but yes that would be a violation of scripture.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

Is there not a scripture about taking matters before a judge when we are wronged? Paul appealed when he was wrongly accused.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

it concerns me that some would feel that we should not go to court to defend ourselves. maybe that is why school prayer was removed, maybe that is why we have abortion? we just misused the scripture and maybe on our way of becoming like the jews of nazi germany. Are you ready for the concentration camps? :smack

You can't take you glossolalic brother to court.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

Wearing a hijab (head covering) means that they "impose their beliefs"? You are certainly free, all of you, to stand up and fight for yours. If you have it in you that is. Me? I dont think you do unless either money or membership is involved.

On the issue of head coverings do that you know your own history from the Roman catacombs to present day. It is only recorded in your art as your teachers have otherwise buried it or traded in original teachings for their own unique "standards".

Shame only 5 uploads are allowed

Rome in the 2nd century, Rome in the 3rd century, England in the 9th century, Europe in the 12th century, Europe in the 13th century

Christian churches until 150-200 years ago taught that these were required. Now you stand up and speak badly of people who practice what your original church did before you?

Muslims and their beliefs have nothing to do with your weaknesses or priorities. If it was your tax exemption at stake - you would fight to the last man. LOL

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

This story is one-sided at this point...

In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right,
until someone comes forward and cross-examines. NIV Proverbs 18:17

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

I never said that. I said we should not take disputes between believers to the world's courts. Not to sound super spiritual or anything... but it looks bad... two saints from the same church suing each other.

Re: BK fires Pentecostal for not wearing pants
 

You should not sue an unbeliever, either;
otherwise, what is "when someone asks for your
shirt, give him your coat, also" paraphrased?

And my kids pray in school,
and I don't practice abortion...
The Jews in Germany were under
a curse, and had fire testing coming;
it was even prophecied upon them.

If God decides to smelt you, no law
will stop it, and it is ignorance to
believe otherwise, sorry.

Go ahead, sue away! :lol