Lobna Abdelrehim

Abdelrehim’s lawsuit states that she has been subjected to an “overtly and disturbing sexually hostile work environment” at GDS International’s Wall Street offices. The complaint describes a workplace that is “rife with unwelcome sex-based bodily contact, such as hugs, patting, and face and forehead kissing.”

Abdelrehim alleges that sexually inappropriate company-wide emails referring to topics such as “MILFs” were regularly distributed.  In addition, her lawsuit claims that she and other saleswomen were given “overtly sexist and demeaning sales propaganda, exhorting [them] to use their feminine wiles as a sale closing technique.” 

For example, one company memo was entitled “Using your SEX to Sell and the Boulevard to Bombshell Bitchiness,” which included tips for female employees to “flirt to get what [you] want” and how female employees “can get away with being aggressive because its sexy.”

Abdelrehim, a Muslim, also claims that religious discrimination against Muslims was common at GDS International.  For example, emails were circulated among employees “depicting men in Muslim garb as raging homicidal terrorists.”

After Abdelrehim complained to the HR manager about the hostile work environment, she alleges that company management “made no attempt to credibly investigate, let alone redress,” her complaints.  Instead, she claims that she was retaliated against for having complained by being demoted shortly afterwards, and she was told that she would be fired if she didn’t achieve an extremely high and “unrealistic” sales quota.

——————–

Got a tip about a bad boss that eBossWatch should feature?  Do you want to expose your toxic boss?  Let us know!  Send us an email at tips@ebosswatch.com 

Connect with eBossWatch on Facebook and Twitter and support our struggle against workplace bullying!

Richard Miniter, the former editorial page editor and vice president of opinion for the Washington Times, has filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC against the newspaper.

Miniter alleges that he was “coerced” by company executives into attending a Unification Church religious ceremony last December that he deemed “creepy.”  The Washington Times is owned by officials of the Unification Church.

Miniter claims that he “was made to feel there was no choice” other than attending the religious ceremony if he wanted to keep his job.  He also said that Washington Times executives gave him “examples of people whose careers at the Times had grown after they converted” and became followers of the Unification Church.

Miniter, a former Wall Street Journal editorial writer and author of several books, was fired unexpectedly in September.  He also filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of age and disability discrimination while employed with the Washington Times.

—————

Got a tip about a bad boss that eBossWatch should feature?  Do you want to expose your toxic boss?  Let us know!  Send us an email at tips@ebosswatch.com

Beliefs protected by the Employment Equality (Religion Or Belief) Regulations 2003 are “any religious or philosophical belief”.  Recent litigation on the meaning of a “philosophical belief” (Grainger plc v Nicholson EAT 2009) confirmed that a passionate belief in ‘man-made global warming’ could be a “philosophical belief” within the Regulations.  The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decided that the case law on the European Convention on Human Rights was relevant in this context, and that to qualify for protection as a “philosophical belief”, the belief must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, and must not be incompatible with human dignity.  It is interesting to note that a religious belief does not have to pass these basic tests in order to be protected.  However the Grainger case explains that there is not requirement that a protected “belief” is one shared by others – a one-off belief is capable of being protected (although it was acknowledged that a widely shared belief is more likely to attract legal protection).  And a “philosophical belief” does not have to be a fully-fledged system of thought; but it must be genuinely held, and about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.

The purpose of the law could be seen as seeking to minimise the effect of philosophical or religious beliefs on the workplace – they are not to be the basis of detriments to workers, either from the employer or from co-workers.

Annabel Kaye is Managing Director of Irenicon Ltd, a specialist employment law consultancy.   Tel: 08452 303050  Fax: 08452 303060  Website : www.irenicon.co.uk.  You can follow Annabel on twitter – http://twitter.com/AnnabelKaye and check our regular articles and news throughout the autumn on our blog site – http://irenicon.wordpress.com/

Employment law provides protection in the workplace for individuals from being subjected to a detriment or harassment on grounds of religious or philosophical belief (theirs or someone else’s), or suffering an unjustifiable disadvantage because of their own religious or philosophical beliefs.  But the statutory protections are a “shield”, not a “sword”.  So an employee cannot call on the regulations to justify attempts to convert co-workers to their beliefs if such behaviour is embargoed by the employer’s rules.  And an employee cannot claim protection of their beliefs to justify ill-treatment of co-workers because they hold different beliefs, or are members of a group held in particular disregard as a result of the employee’s beliefs.  So an employee of “faith” will not be protected if their faith requires them to act in a hostile or dismissive way when confronted with particular individuals such as women, gay people, or people of different beliefs.  

Annabel Kaye is Managing Director of Irenicon Ltd, a specialist employment law consultancy.   Tel: 08452 303050  Fax: 08452 303060  Website : www.irenicon.co.uk.  You can follow Annabel on twitter – http://twitter.com/AnnabelKaye and check our regular articles and news throughout the autumn on our blog site – http://irenicon.wordpress.com/

A scientific belief and a religious or philosophical belief are two quite different types of belief.  The use of the same word – “belief” – to cover these two meanings can lead to confusion.  And the significance in an employment law context is that religious and philosophical beliefs may be afforded some legal protection, but scientific beliefs are not.

 A scientific belief is based upon a scientific method of enquiry, a rational process of inference and deduction based on evidence.  The results of a scientific experiment should be the same whoever conducts the experiment (providing the same methodology is used).  This test of experimental replicability is one of the key “proof” tests for scientific hypotheses.  A religious or philosophical belief is a different kind of belief, based on faith which needs no proof.  Indeed most core religious beliefs address topics in respect of which there can be no proof (in a scientific sense).

Annabel Kaye is Managing Director of Irenicon Ltd, a specialist employment law consultancy.   Tel: 08452 303050  Fax: 08452 303060  Website : www.irenicon.co.uk.  You can follow Annabel on twitter – http://twitter.com/AnnabelKaye and check our regular articles and news throughout the autumn on our blog site – http://irenicon.wordpress.com/

Last one, I promise. (Unless something really wild comes along.)

Carrie’s latest cross to bear? Her appearance on Larry King Live didn’t go so well. Larry asked a rather vague question about her recent court settlement, and the former Miss California USA pageant winner went into a snit, telling King that his question was “inappropriate”. It would seem Miss Prejean hasn’t had any coaching in how to deflect a question she doesn’t want to answer. She’s still in the “poor little ole’ me, everyone’s picking on me just because I don’t think gays should have any rights” mode. She tried to take her microphone off and storm out, but apparently even that didn’t come off as planned. Poor little Carrie, can’t even pull off a snit correctly!

Another burden for our beauty queen to deal with came when her former boyfriend announced that Carrie had done the “solo” sex video for him, and that there was more than just the one! Carrie’s claim that she was a foolish 17 year old when the video was made was disputed by her former paramour, who says she was twenty at the time it was recorded.

The religious right first championed Carrie, who became their darling when Perez Hilton went into queen bitch mode on his blog about her response to his question during the pageant about same-sex marriage. Carrie was instantly the right-wing Princess who was being hated on by the evil homosexual activists for standing up for Christian morality. Milking that for all she could, she was trotted out around the country at right-wing events. She got herself into hot water with the Donald (owner of the Miss USA pageants) after failing to appear at pageant events, and showing up at those unsanctioned right-wing events. The Donald finally told her “YOU”RE FIRED!”, and she sued for “religious discrimination” in her employment. That’s when the “solo” act surfaced, and the trial was suddenly settled with all parties signing non-disclosure agreements. The wingnut cancellations began immediately (see my previous post).

How much you want to bet she ends up doing weather for some TV station in Orange County? Or maybe Fox will put her in her own show. They’ll have a slot to fill after Glenn Beck is gone, assuming the fantasies he believes come true.

Last one, I promise.  (Unless something really wild comes along.)

Carrie Prejean

Carrie’s latest cross to bear?  Her appearance on Larry King Live didn’t go so well.  Larry asked a rather vague question about her recent court settlement, and the former Miss California USA pageant winner went into a snit, telling King that his question was “inappropriate”.  It would seem Miss Prejean hasn’t had any coaching in how to deflect a question she doesn’t want to answer.  She’s still in the “poor little ole’ me, everyone’s picking on me just because I don’t think gays should have any rights” mode. She tried to take her microphone off and storm out, but apparently even that didn’t come off as planned.  Poor little Carrie, can’t even pull off a snit correctly!

Another burden for our beauty queen to deal with came when her former boyfriend announced that  Carrie had done the “solo” sex video for him, and that there was more than just the one!  Carrie’s claim that she was a foolish 17 year old when the video was made was disputed by her former paramour, who says she was twenty at the time it was recorded.

The religious right first championed Carrie,  who became their darling when Perez Hilton went into queen bitch mode on his blog about her response to his question during the pageant about same-sex marriage.  Carrie was instantly the right-wing Princess who was being hated on by the evil homosexual activists for standing up for Christian morality.  Milking that for all she could, she was trotted out around the country at right-wing events.  She got herself into hot water with the Donald (owner of the Miss USA pageants) after failing to appear at pageant events, and showing up at those unsanctioned right-wing events.  The Donald finally told her “YOU”RE FIRED!”, and she sued for “religious discrimination” in her employment.  That’s when the “solo” act surfaced, and the trial was suddenly settled with all parties signing non-disclosure agreements.  The wingnut cancellations began immediately (see my previous post).

How much you want to bet she ends up doing weather for some TV station in Orange County?  Or maybe Fox will put her in her own show.  They’ll have a slot to fill after Glenn Beck is gone, assuming the fantasies he believes come true.

The EEOC filed a lawsuit against staffing company Administaff, Inc. and Conn-X, LLC, a cable service provider in Baltimore, for subjecting Jewish employees to religious discrimination and workplace bullying.

The lawsuit claims that the two companies subjected Scott Jacobson and Joey Jacobson, who are brothers, to physical and verbal harassment and a hostile work environment because of their religion, Judaism. The victims claim that from September 2005 and continuing for several years, they were called “dirty Jew,” “dumb Jew,” and other anti-Semitic slurs by managers and coworkers.

The physical harassment included an incident in which Scott Jacobson’s work vehicle was defaced with a swastika and an incident in which he was forced into a trash dumpster for the amusement of managers, who observed the entire incident on a work surveillance camera. 

“The harassment here was cruel and callous,” said Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The use of the swastika is an especially egregious and provocative act, and the anti-Semitic epithets and physical violence alleged here are also outrageous. The EEOC will act, and act forcefully, to rectify this kind of workplace abuse.”

—————-

Rate my boss at eBossWatch

What happened at Fort Hood? Why would a psychiatrist, a physician trained in the treatment of “mental and nervous” disorders, go on a rampage against his own comrades? I suspect we will be reading about the following in the days ahead:

1. Did Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the accused murderer, have proper supervision of his work and his own fitness for duty? Did he suffer from a psychiatric disorder of his own and was he being treated? News accounts suggest that he was terrified in anticipation of an expected deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan.

2. To what extent did he feel marginalized within the Armed Services? He is said to be a man born in the USA, the son of immigrant parents. It is also reported that he had become increasingly devoted to his Muslim faith and might have experienced some harassment from other soldiers because of his religion.

3. Was the Major marginalized in other ways? He is described as a 39-year-old bachelor who had been looking unsuccessfully for a mate.

4. Major Hasan is believed to have treated numerous veterans suffering from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) returning from the Middle East. Is it possible that he suffered a form of vicarious trauma from hearing the disturbing, if not tragic stories of these young people?

5. To what degree have the Armed Services been able to reform an organizational culture that discourages soldiers from showing emotional vulnerability and seeking treatment before they become dysfunctional? It is one thing for the returning wounded veterans to get psychiatric services; it is another for them to believe, early on, that their anxiety, worry, and depression will not be seen as a weakness by their comrades, make it harder to perform their duties in war-time, and cause them to be ridiculed? Did Major Hasan, who apparently had not experienced combat himself, believe that his own inner-turmoil was acceptable and would have received support from his superiors?

6. Did Dr. Hasan have a history of having received treatment prior to his entrance into the military? If Dr. Hasan did seek treatment at any time, what was the result? Is their any routine assessment of the psychological status of both the soldiers and those who are given the task of treating them? Does the military realize that the nature of their work puts virtually all personnel at psychological risk?

7. What security procedures exist in military installations such as Fort Hood?

8. Is the military sensitive to cultural conflicts that are experienced by its uniformed personnel?

Most of us assume that mental health professionals have their own personal lives well under control. Unfortunately, such is not always the case. For more on this subject, please read my recent blog: “When Helping Hurts: Therapists Who Need Therapy.”

Republicans made gains in this election, some LGBT initiatives won and others lost.  With the current economic trends and some of the debates on what policies to implement and the lack of significant changes coming to fruition,  the gains by the opposing party are not surprising.

The Topsy Turvy voting on LGBT issues is a reflection of the powerful schism mostly fueled by the religious right that is determined to undermine the civil rights gains made by the LGBT community.  The fight is on and it is a real battle of ideas backed by the money of some of the richest religious bodies of the world.

The Obama administration and the Democrats need to take lessons from this election to turn the tide by implementing significant policies that really make the difference – even if it means isolating the loud minority of naysayers ( who will continue to be naysayers under whatever circumstance ). It has to be done.   Action has to show the Change that was promised.

The LGBT community and their friends need to unite more than ever against a theocratic driven influence that continues to try to determine the course of law in the country.  We are a democracy of pluralistic beliefs and ideas where all citizens are afforded the same rights.  This must be protected and the fight for LGBT rights is a a fight for all American citizens.

The anti-LGBT rights groups’ religious and pro-family propaganda are simply fronts for their own self appointed religious beliefs driven by this obsession of being divinely selected  to be the moral vanguard of society at all costs.  They are in  a modern crusade- not caring about the collateral damage to the lives of LGBT people as a result of their theocratic quest for political power to bring about their theocratic idea of paradise on earth.

What are the next steps? The next steps are to get involve in your community,  with your elected officials and be an activist for equal rights.  Reverse the trend of this election and set it on the right course again.

Google is being sued by James Bara, a Georgia-based former employee for sexual and religious discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

From TechCrunch:

Lawsuits can be the source of all sorts of surprising and off the wall stories and this one, filed by a Google Atlanta-based former data center employee takes the cake. In the lawsuit, which was filed on Oct. 29 in a federal court in Atlanta, the former employee, James Bara, alleges both sexual and religious discrimination from his superior.

While it doesn’t sound juicy, the stories that Bara tells are. Bara was initially a contractor for Google’s Atlanta office, working as an assistant in the Data Center. After six months, he was hired by Google as a full-time employee. According to the complaint, all was rosy for the next two years until a female transgender employee joined the group Bara worked for. Bara’s boss, a woman named Pam Sohn, allegedly made inappropriate comments about this woman, and ridiculed her sexual preference.

From InformationWeek:

In his court filing, James Bara, a practicing Wiccan, claims that a manager in Google’s Atlanta office, Pam Sohn, made numerous jokes about the sexual orientation of a female transgendered employee who joined the company in July 2008.

“I informed Ms. Sohn the remarks were inappropriate and she stopped making them,” he says in his discrimination complaint. “Shortly thereafter, Ms. Sohn began making inappropriate comments about my religion.”

Bara’s complaint then describes a series of escalating human resources complaints and alleged workplace retaliation.

He charges that he began being treated differently in the office and was required to be in the office when female workers were not.

“Controversial claims that Christians should not have to condone homosexuality will be made in the court of appeal today [2nd Nov.], as a registrar says she suffered discrimination by being required to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies.”

Full story

The Guardian, 2nd November 2009

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Andy Sullivan at Blue Collar Corner covered a heated confrontation between Tea Party Patriots and Democrat activists in Queens today.

Socialist Senator Chuck Schumer was there as well.

Here’s one video!

More pictures:

It is time for Dan Halloran.

More on the Religious Bigotry evidenced in the Kevin Kim campaign!

I read on Yahoo! News about a cashier of Home Depot in Okeechobee, Florida (northern lip of Lake Okeechobee) who was fired for wearing a button which said, “One Nation Under God, Indivisible.”  Trevor Keezer said, “"I’ve worn it for well over a year and I support my country and God.  I was just doing what I think every American should do, just love my country."

I read this paragraph, and immediately my hackles arose because I thought this was a clear case of religious discrimination.  “We live in America!  This shouldn’t happen.  We have rights of free speech in the First Amendment!” 

But I had to read the rest of the article.  Home Depot, Inc., has clear dress code rules, which are posted clearly:

An excerpt of the article:

A Home Depot spokesman said Keezer was fired because he violated the company’s dress code.

"This associate chose to wear a button that expressed his religious beliefs. The issue is not whether or not we agree with the message on the button," Craig Fishel said. "That’s not our place to say, which is exactly why we have a blanket policy, which is long-standing and well-communicated to our associates, that only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons."

Fishel said Keezer was offered a company-approved pin that said, "United We Stand," but he declined.

I believe this shed light on the entire incident.  One can understand why Home Depot would put these rules in place.  Given the variety of beliefs people have in the United States, all sorts of buttons and patches saying all sorts of things could be worn (Christian or otherwise) that would not be in place. 

Was Home Depot wrong?  Given the clarity of their dress code policy, I say, “No.”  They were well within their right to enforce company policy, especially to a resistant employee who would not comply. 

What think ye?  Is this religious discrimination, or the enforcement of clear company policy?

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. – Trevor Keezer calls himself an American patriot, a man who loves his country, God and religion. He never imagined his beliefs would get him fired.

But that’s exactly what the 20-year-old says happened when he reported for work at The Home Depot in the rural Florida town of Okeechobee, about 140 miles north of Miami.

Keezer said he’d been wearing an American flag button on his Home Depot apron since he began working as a cashier at the store in March 2008. The button read, “One nation under God, indivisible.”

“I’ve worn it for well over a year and I support my country and God,” Keezer said Tuesday. “I was just doing what I think every American should do, just love my country.”

http://www.startribune.com/business/66554657.html

Related Story: Trevor Keezer to file a religious discrimination suit

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/oct/27/fired-home-depot-worker-to-file-religious-suit/

Comment from the Star Tribune/Minneapolis:

Featured comment

Yet our government demandsthat employers provide time and places for Muslim worship. What is wrong with this picture?

Gina Uberti, a former sales manager at Bath and Body Works, has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against the retailer for firing her on the basis of her religious beliefs.

Uberti, who is a member of the Wiccan religion, had asked her boss, Sandra Scibelli, for time off so that she could celebrate the Wiccan new year religious holiday. 

Scibelli told Uberti, “That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard….you will ned a new career in your new year.  I will be damned if I have a devil-worshipper on my team.”

Uberti was fired on November 2008 after she returned from her holiday vacation.  She is suing Bath and Body Works for lost wages and punitive damages for religious discrimination.

—————-

Rate my boss with eBossWatch

Powered with cash and a built in well oiled organized group of followers, with a theocracy based on obedience to God’s one and only true prophet of God,  the Mormons ( the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) were the most influential religious body to exercise its financial and political muscle in California’s passage of proposition 8.

Not since its successful battle against the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70’s, has the Mormon or the LDS Church been as politically active in what it believes is its Heaven directed right to insure that homosexuality is not legally condoned or morally accepted in the United States. It is political will validated by religious belief.

Similar to the right wing fundamental christian extremists in desired results but with more sophistication, power and money.  They are also American born, bred, and headquartered- unlike the anti-gay Catholic Church which takes it orders from Rome.

In fact, the Mormons believe that the United States is a land of promise in a religious sense, and this only adds to their fervor to keep it morally upright according to their value system.  Scripturally rich, with both the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon as their main Holy texts centered on Jesus Christ, coupled with their belief in continuing revelation, the Mormons believe that God speaks to them today through their prophet.

Obedience to the prophet equals obedience to God.  Disobedience to the prophet equals …well you get the picture. Sure they believe and preach free will.  However, disobedience to God’s commandments can lead to lost of church membership. Homosexuality is one of those acts that tops that list.

8:  The Mormon Proposition is a documentary that  has currently been sent and making its round in some independent film festivals.  Its main goal is to illustrate the enormous influence that the LDS Church has  and continues to have in the opposition of same sex marriage in the United States.  It also shows the impact of religious interference in our modern democratic political process and the role of religious money.

There is also the propaganda that is used to dehumanize the LGBT community and the hate that is influenced and nutured from the pulpit and sermons.

The website of the film is:

http://www.mormonproposition.com/

Source: http://www.indonesiamatters.com/6287/uu-perfilman/

Cultural protectionism and Big Brother in Indonesian film making law, the UU Perfilman.

The highly controversial new bill on Film was passed into law (UU Perfilman) by the parliament on September 8th. These are the articles in the law most commented upon:

• Article 6: Prohibition of depictions of drug use, violence, gambling, as well as pornography, insulting of religion, and provocative, hateful content.
• Article 7: Prohibition of the screening of films aimed at over 21 audiences in non-cinema locations or open spaces.
• Article 18: Film makers are required to inform the Minister of Culture and Tourism of the title, story outline and production plan of any prospective film. The Minister will not approve productions that have the same title and/or story as existing films. There is no charge for this process. If approval is granted film production must begin within three months.
• Article 32: Cinemas must show 60% local content (of course meaning foreign films may only be shown 40% of the time).
• Article 42: Foreign films which do not uphold correct religious, ethical, moral, and national cultural values are to be prohibited from import.
• Article 49 & 51: Films and those who work in the film industry are to uphold correct religious, ethical, moral, and national cultural values.
• Article 53: Regional governments are responsible for enforcing, developing and implementing locally based film policies, in accordance with national law.

Typical of the many derisory and hostile reactions to the law among performers and film producers came from old acting hand Deddy Mizwar, who cried

This country is doomed, this country is doomed!

while threatening to retire as chairman of the National Film Board (Badan Pertimbangan Perfilman Nasional) in protest.

Culture & Tourism minister Jero Wacik defended the bill in nationalistic terms, saying the Indonesian film industry would be boosted immeasurably by Article 32, the 60% local content rule at cinemas.

The Perfilman law can be viewed on Google Docs, as can the old 1992 law.

Tesco has just earned itself some seriously awesome nerd street-cred. It definitely makes up for their lack of German GQ issues this summer. Check out this hilarious post from /Film after the jump.

LOL: Tesco Supermarket Accused of Discriminating Against Jedis | /Film

Posted using ShareThis