Thought you AFF folks would like to see this
 

May 31, 2007 -- A bus driver is seeking redress from the MTA after getting fired for refusing to wear pants.
On her second week on the job, Tahita Jenkins, 33, explained to her new bosses that as a Pentecostalist, the standard issue NYC Transit bus-driver uniform is against her religion.
She even provided a note from the pastor of her Far Rockaway church, Holy Ghost Headquarters Prayer Band Mission of New Beginning Deliverance Church, requesting she be permitted to wear a skirt. But transit officials insisted that for safety reasons she had to wear either pants or culottes.
"I told them culottes are just wide pants," Jenkins said. "I said 'I'm not going to change my religious beliefs just to be a bus driver.' I've been driving a school bus for years and my skirt never got caught on anything." Transit officials said they had no choice but to fire her Tuesday.
The agency has come under fire in the past for accusations of religious discrimination, such as the Sikh train operator who wanted to wear his turban. But this case is different, officials said.
"The supervisor went out of his way to try to accommodate her," NYC Transit spokesman Charles Seaton said. "We had tried a few years ago to use a uniform skirt, but it was rejected for safety reasons. It was very restrictive, and there [is a] danger it could get caught on something."
By taking her hand off the wheel to adjust her skirt, Jenkins could put her passengers in danger, Seaton said.
A single mother with three children, Jenkins said she was thrilled to get called up for the job after waiting four years on a waiting list.
"It's a good job with great benefits," she said. "I just don't understand. Other departments in transit are allowed to wear skirts, and I will be able to fully perform my duties."
Jenkins said she has considered filing a pant suit.
She may have a case based on similar recent decisions in lawsuits filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
In 2002, Brinks Inc., the armored-security company, was successfully sued for firing a Pentecostal driver who refused to wear pants.
In addition to a $30,000 award, the driver was offered her job back and was permitted to wear culottes as a compromise.
EEOC attorney Justine Lisser said that while she could not comment on Jenkins' case without knowing more details, the law is clear that "a company cannot discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion."
An employer could possibly win a case by arguing that the particular religious observance caused a safety hazard, she said. For instance, a factory could prohibit employees from wearing loose clothing that could get caught in machines, she said.

Someone just sent me that in email, Sis. Alvear.

Yeah that church name really caught my attention ...

Holy Ghost Headquarters Prayer Band Mission of New Beginning Deliverance Church

This has got to be a joke! :lol

and a partridge in a pear treeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

:lol:killinme

She should stick to her convictions ,but did she not know the uniform requirements prior to getting hired ? And did she tell her future employer of her convictions before getting hired ?

I don´t think she should be thinking about suing if she is so spiritual...(just my thoughts)

This should have been worked out prior to her employment.

It is only stupid if the employer can adequately demonstrate the safety issue.... This line in the story does not work...

"By taking her hand off the wheel to adjust her skirt, Jenkins could put her passengers in danger"

Like women in pants (or men for that matter) would do less "adjusting" - I don't think so....

Seems to me the culottes should have resolved the conflict though.

Stephen Hoover;~ What I find stupid is this person sued, if you can't wear the uniform don't apply for the job... Like wanting to be a cop, they wear pants, it's part of their job, if it goes against your beliefs well find another job, easy really~

In this case you are likely right. But what if there really was discrimination going on?

The workers in my facility are required, by the USDA, to wear certain personal protective equipment which, among other things, includes wearing slacks and not dresses. This is an unfortunate fact of life and it is for the protection and quality of our product. There are no less than 21 UPC gals that are employed at my plant and all abide by the rules without ridicule from the pastor or the saints. Everyone knows they are Pentecostal and they have been a great witnesses for G_d. It can be done, even if they can't wear dresses.

Bro. Dave

Thats great.

Sure if they said she could not do the job because of her gender, but due to the fact she can't wear a skirt, please!

There a part of my job that requires I wear ear and eye protecting, yes it a pain but it's part of my job.

About 10 years ago at Bloomington, In. Otis Elevator fired a lady for not wearing pants of all folks the ACLU sued for her and got her job back and back pay and an apology. They had no WRITTEN policy and you just can't make it up as you go.

There is a mighty breeze in those buses with all the windows down!!!!!!!

My older daughter got a job at a local fast food place here. She wore a skirt. The manager said it had to be below the knee. No problem. When my younger daughter got a job there, she was called up after working for 2 days and they said don't come in unless you are wearing pants. I called up to find out what was going on and they had it in the manual that the uniform was pants. They tried to make her wear pants to keep the job but it didn't work. She has been working there now for almost a year. The other day another worker looked at her and said "Hey, you have a skirt on" everybody else just laughed.

I would not ridicule them if they told them to do it they would just have to find another job. But it has to be a written rule. Then I doubt if it is legal if contested.

Many USDA regulated plants like mine, have every requirement documented. They are told the rules at the interview and during their orientation. Their choice is not whether to wear a skirt of slacks, their choice is more like, "do you want to work here or not?"

Bro. Dave