US sues school over denial of Muslim pilgrimage

[T-Rock]

US sues school over denial of Muslim pilgrimage

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Pete Yost, Associated Press – Mon Dec 13

WASHINGTON – The federal government sued a suburban Chicago school district Monday for denying a Muslim middle school teacher unpaid leave to make a pilgrimage to Mecca that is a central part of her religion.

In a civil rights case, the department said the school district in Berkeley, Ill., denied the request of Safoorah Khan on grounds that her requested leave was unrelated to her professional duties and was not set forth in the contract between the school district and the teachers union. In doing so the school district violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate her religious practices, the government said.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

Khan wanted to perform the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia which every adult Muslim is supposed to make at least once in a lifetime if they are physically and financially able to. Millions go each year.

Khan started as a middle school teacher for Berkeley School District 87 — about 15 miles west of Chicago — in 2007. In 2008, she asked for almost three weeks of unpaid leave to perform the Hajj. After the district twice denied her request, Khan wrote the board that "based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying performing hajj," and resigned shortly thereafter, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Chicago.

Berkeley School District compelled Khan to choose between her job and her religious beliefs, the lawsuit said.

The government asked the court to order the school district to adopt policies that reasonably accommodate its employees' religious practices and beliefs, and to reinstate Khan with back pay and also pay her compensatory damages.

In November 2008, Khan filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which found reasonable cause that discrimination had occurred and forwarded the matter to the Justice Department. The case is the first brought by department in a project to ensure vigorous enforcement of the 1964 act against state and local governments by improving cooperation between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the department's civil rights division.

A message left for the school district seeking comment was not immediately returned.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101214/...muslim_teacher

[Pete]

If she would have waited a few years it would have been in the summer when she was off.

One of the perks of worshiping a religion that started with the moon god.

[Irishsquid]

Why in the name of Allah/God/Yahweh/Krishna/Vishnu would the Federal Government get involved in this? This makes no sense at all...

[longrange1947]

And Sharia law makes another baby step into US law.

[T-Rock]

Why in the name of Allah/God/Yahweh/Krishna/Vishnu would the Federal Government get involved in this? This makes no sense at all...

CAIR must be laughing in jihadic glee....

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, December 13, 2010
Justice Department Files Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Berkeley School District in Illinois

WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department today announced it has filed a lawsuit against Berkeley School District, Berkeley, Ill., alleging that the school district violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of Safoorah Khan, a Muslim teacher at McArthur Middle School.

The government’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, alleges that Ms. Khan requested an unpaid leave of absence in December 2008 to perform Hajj, a pilgrimage required by her religion. According to the complaint, Berkeley School District denied Ms. Khan’s request because the purpose of her leave was not related to her professional duties nor was it leave for any of the specific purposes set forth in the Professional Negotiations Agreement between the district and the teachers’ union. The United States further alleges that, because Berkeley School District denied her a religious accommodation, the district compelled Ms. Khan to choose between her job and her religious beliefs, and thus forced her discharge.

The lawsuit is based on a charge of discrimination filed by Ms. Khan with the Chicago District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After investigating Ms. Khan’s charge, finding reasonable cause to believe that Berkeley School District had discriminated against Ms. Khan, and unsuccessfully attempting to conciliate the matter, the EEOC referred the charge to the Department of Justice. More information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

In the lawsuit, the United States seeks an order requiring Berkeley School District to adopt a policy designed to reasonably accommodate the religious observances, practices and beliefs of employees and prospective employees. In addition, the United States seeks back pay, compensatory damages and reinstatement for Ms. Khan.

"Employees should not have to choose between their religious practice and their livelihood," said Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "Federal law prohibits employers from treating employees and applicants less favorably because of their religion, and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for the religious beliefs and practices of their employees."

"The EEOC is committed to ensuring that individuals are protected from religious discrimination at work," said Jacqueline A. Berrien, Chair of the EEOC. "We are pleased to foster this important collaboration with the Department of Justice to enforce the laws that ensure our workplaces are free of bias."

This is the first lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice as a result of a pilot project designed to ensure vigorous enforcement of Title VII against state and local governmental employers by enhancing cooperation between the EEOC and the Civil Rights Division.

The filing of the lawsuit reflects the Civil Right’s Divisions ongoing commitment to actively enforce federal employment discrimination laws. Additional information about the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is available on its website at www.usdoj.gov/crt.

Source: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/D...-crt-1432.html

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Irishsquid

Why in the name of Allah/God/Yahweh/Krishna/Vishnu would the Federal Government get involved in this? This makes no sense at all...

To be expected when the POTUS thinks the Islamic call to prayer is the prettiest sound in the world.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ly-doubles.php

Our government better take heed of what Germany learned the hard way:

http://www.redcounty.com/content/why...ralism-failure

[Richard]

The government’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, alleges that Ms. Khan requested an unpaid leave of absence in December 2008 to perform Hajj, a pilgrimage required by her religion. According to the complaint, Berkeley School District denied Ms. Khan’s request because the purpose of her leave was not related to her professional duties nor was it leave for any of the specific purposes set forth in the Professional Negotiations Agreement between the district and the teachers’ union. The United States further alleges that, because Berkeley School District denied her a religious accommodation, the district compelled Ms. Khan to choose between her job and her religious beliefs, and thus forced her discharge.

The lawsuit is based on a charge of discrimination filed by Ms. Khan with the Chicago District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After investigating Ms. Khan’s charge, finding reasonable cause to believe that Berkeley School District had discriminated against Ms. Khan, and unsuccessfully attempting to conciliate the matter, the EEOC referred the charge to the Department of Justice.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/D...-crt-1432.html

Reasonable accomodation?

Her religion says once at some point during her life.

She has a voluntarily signed contract in whiich she knew her chance to take the trip while fulfilling the contract were slim, at best.

She wants to go now - doesn't have to go now - but wants to go now.

She seeks an exception to her contract and - as she suspected it would be based on her previous requests and the terms of the contract - is denied the exception.

She quits...her prerogative...and now she can go when and however many times she wants.

She files a law suit citing 'unreasonable accomodation' for her religious beliefs.

From an educational standpoint, studies have shown that in schools:

• Permanent teachers are important and their absence has a negative impact on student achievement.
• Substitute teachers have to deal with many challenges: time too short to learn the students' learning style to meet their needs; unclear, inadequate, or missing lesson plans; general low expectation by teachers, administrators, and students; insufficient training in instruction or classroom management.
• Studies have shown a belief in substitute incompetence can be "a self-fulfilling prophesy" as teachers tend to leave disengaging work for the substitute which diminishes their role and makes them less effective.
• Work left for the substitute teacher is often "busy work" that may involve continuation and completion of previous work.
• Regular teachers may hesitate to assign serious work to the substitutes because of a lack of interaction or information exchange between the regular teacher and the substitute teacher, and the teacher not knowing the substitute's credentials.
• Lengthy absences incur a greater effect upon students as there is a further loss of effectiveness during the readjustment to the teacher-student relationship upon the teacher's return.

Bottom line: I am struggling with the reasoning behind an EEOC supported suit on this one - the whole 'want' vs 'need' aspect of the case.

I would like to be a member of a jury hearing this one...or maybe not.

And so it goes...

Richard

[T-Rock]

Bottom line: I am struggling with the reasoning behind an EEOC supported suit on this one - the whole 'want' vs 'need' aspect of the case.

Just think, if the US Department of Sharia wins this case, Muslims in America, as a Civil Right, will be able to go on the Hajj anytime they like and an employer won't be able to say squat about it

[Truckie117]

If any of you guys said you wanted to visit Rome or Jerusalem for religious reasons while on deployment see how far you get. And see if Ol Eric comes to your rescue.
Mike

[longrange1947]

Does this mean Catholics can make a Pilgrimage to the Vatican, Jewish to the Wailing Wall, and even Druids to Stonehenge?????

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

Does this mean Catholics can make a Pilgrimage to the Vatican, Jewish to the Wailing Wall, and even Druids to Stonehenge?????

Doesn't totally equate due to your listing of 3 legitimate faiths.

[trvlr]

Back at USMA I had some classmates go on 2 year Mormon missions after their sophomore years. After they returned they were reinstated and graduated after finishing their last two years.

With exceptions like that, it is reasonable for Muslims to ->think<- they could do the same, in a different context, with unpaid leave.

I still don't understand why the Fed would get involved. As Richard said, she signed the contract. Maybe there is more to the story?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by trvlr

Back at USMA I had some classmates go on 2 year Mormon missions after their sophomore years. After they returned they were reinstated and graduated after finishing their last two years.

With exceptions like that, it is reasonable for Muslims to ->think<- they could do the same, in a different context, with unpaid leave.

I still don't understand why the Fed would get involved. As Richard said, she signed the contract. Maybe there is more to the story?

I can't say as I agree to the logic of your analogy.

The Mormons were unpaid students, not teachers; am I not correct?

[trvlr]

We received a monthly stipend, and money for books, school supplies, etc.

Basically, I agree wholeheartedly with Richard's post. I just wanted to show that it's not completely off base for one to assume that an organization will give them large amounts of time off to do religious work.

[Richard]

I'm hopeful this is being put forth as a sort of 'slam-dunk' test case - a strong case to find in favor of the idea that contractural law remains valid and establishing a precedent to put any similar cases to rest in the future - could save a lot of time, effort, and $$.

And so it goes...

Richard