January 26, 2011 12:24 am at 12:24 am #594476
I just heard that Louis Vuitton is being sued by a Jewish employee because they made her work every Saturday.
This issue came up a while back where another employer wanted my cousin to work every Saturday.
Can companies do this?January 26, 2011 12:44 am at 12:44 am #735534
scoop – A company can tell you if they want you to work only mornings, only a few times a week, and only on certain days. If you don’t like it don’t work for them!January 26, 2011 12:48 am at 12:48 am #735535
They do this all the time. Nothing has really changed in the US for frum yidden. But years ago, goyim were more honest, now they have official laws against religious discrimination, but don’t enforce them.January 26, 2011 1:07 am at 1:07 am #735536
The City of New York recently settled a discrimination case with an Orthodox Jewish nurse who refused to work on Shabat. However, this was under New York law which only protects New York residents. If you live anywhere else, you may be out of luck. Unless they are singling out Jews, there may be no discrimination.January 26, 2011 3:44 am at 3:44 am #735537
Charlie -Isn’t that zip from California? I think there is some show 90 something. Actually, I’m rethinking my post. The Federal Appeals Courts in the West have upheld TWA vs. Harding, not like the Appeals Courts on the East, where they make a sham of that Supreme Court case- were if the company says it’s “undue hardship” then it is, no matter what you say, no matter whether they have proof or not. Actually, I tried this argument to the Supreme Court, that there shouldn’t be more than one law to the land (different Appeals Courts rulings), but they still refused to take the case. This happenned to me and others. You might actually get some justice on the West Coast, not like here. Maybe over there -their bias isn’t as strong like those over here, who think it’s called “Jew York”. (Recent TV news -Jew York Jets lose.)January 26, 2011 3:59 am at 3:59 am #735538
90210 is Beverly Hills, California. That’s where the show gets its name from.January 26, 2011 5:18 am at 5:18 am #735539
Employees with relevant college degrees generally have more bargaining power against demands for work on Shabbos.January 26, 2011 5:37 am at 5:37 am #735540
“TWA vs. Harding”
You mean Trans World Airlines vs. Hardison?
As I pointed out, New York State law offers greater protection than does federal law.
I don’t watch TV so I had forgotten that 90210 was a television show.January 26, 2011 6:06 am at 6:06 am #735541
Charlie – I must have gotten the father and son mixed up. Harding must be the father.January 26, 2011 10:42 am at 10:42 am #735543
36 years ago I started becoming a BT in San Francisco. at the time I worked for a company that required working on occasional Saturdays. at first, I was able to get a non-Jewish friend to take my Saturdays for me, but then she turned on me– saying it was unfair- & subsequently, I lost my job because I wouldn’t work on Saturdays. somewhere in my oh-too-much-stuff basement, I remember having paperwork discussing the whole situation, but, bottom line: I DID get un-employment benefits.January 26, 2011 2:19 pm at 2:19 pm #735544
I am not a lawyer but the way I understand the law, it goes as follows. If with reasonable accomidation, the shift can be switched, then the employer is required to do so. An example that happened to me as a computer professional was that everyone had to be on call 1 week every 2 month (24/7) for problem solving. The company wouldn’t hire me because I could not be on call that 1 Saturday every 2 months. I argued that I could switch with someone and take Sunday. The hiring manager wouldn’t agree, but when I went to the head of Personnell, he almost killed the hiring manager.January 26, 2011 2:39 pm at 2:39 pm #735545
Assuming you are in the United States, Federal law requires “reasonable accomodation”. This means the company has to have a good reason for not insisting you work on Saturday but if they have a good reason, they can insist. For example, Saturday is the leading shopping day so most retailers would be able to insist that a saleman work on Saturday. If a company (or more likely, a labor union) has a rule under which working on Saturday goes to the least senior person, a company is allowed to follow seniority. Both state and federal (EEOC) take complaints, and there are various frum organization that can advise you. It is often best to look for a career in an area in which Saturday is not a normal business day, or where the company is open on Sunday and will let you trade off working Sunday (when the goyim want off) for Saturday.January 26, 2011 2:45 pm at 2:45 pm #735546
“Reasonable” accommodation is a bit arbitrary. I might think it is reasonable, while you might think it is unreasonable. Call a labor lawyer in your state to see how your state defines reasonable.January 26, 2011 4:06 pm at 4:06 pm #735547
If you don’t like it don’t work for them!
Wow! How encouraging! Why did you post this? Is there another webiste called “The Anti Semite World” or “The Anti Religious World?”January 26, 2011 4:23 pm at 4:23 pm #735548
Homeowner – No where in the OP did it mention anything about the company doing it because of Anti Semitisim. Its normal for a company to want workers to work the days specified, If someone can not abbied by the rules of a company, then find somewhere else to work. Plain and simple.January 26, 2011 4:34 pm at 4:34 pm #735549
real-brisker, thank you for your support of the frum community.January 26, 2011 4:47 pm at 4:47 pm #735550
I completely agree with real-brisker. It’s like when the garbage trucks don’t come due to the legal holiday, and people cry “anti-semitism!” It makes perfect sense for a company to require an employee to work on Saturdays, and if you can’t do that, then either don’t work for them, or make yourself valuable enough to them that they have to accept your terms. But crying anti-semitism and filing lawsuits is, in my opinion, counterproductive, for maybe it helps in the particular case, but in general I think it makes people think that the Jews are taking advantage of the Constitution to push their own agenda. Also, to the general public which does not see this as anti-semitism, they see the Jews crying wolf, and when something comes up that is a real problem, they wont be on our side.January 26, 2011 5:17 pm at 5:17 pm #735551
Homeowner – You can’t argue with them -this is reality in the good ole USA. I took one of my Shabbos discrimination cases up to the Supreme Court – they didn’t want to hear it. I still can only assume why the Judge and subsequent Appeals Court ruled against me was because of Bias. There is no logical reason that they had any hardship, let alone an “undue hardship” not to accommondate me being off for Shabbos!January 26, 2011 7:23 pm at 7:23 pm #735552
Homeowner – The concept of having to work on saturday has nothing to do with AS. NO ONE wants to work on a weekend, even a non-jew doesnt want to work on a weekend! Some companies need the work done not just 5 days a week, rather 7 days a week. And these companies are not interested in people who work to their own convinence, rather what is convinent for the company. Homeowner – place yourself as a manager of a company that has the same amount of work that needs to get done every single day of the week, and all the workers cvetch that they want the weekend off, would you let? If yes who will you hire to fill the work of those days? Dont blame everything on Anti-semitism.January 26, 2011 7:30 pm at 7:30 pm #735553
chayav inish livisumayParticipant
most companies dont work on saturdays so just find one like that. theres no point in getting a job that makes you work on saturdays and then make a big deal about it, just get a different jobJanuary 27, 2011 4:09 am at 4:09 am #735554
scoop_90210, in what city and state is the Louis Vuitton lawsuit?
The case involved, among other things, a group of frum guys who wanted to be appliance repairmen. The problem was that Sears required, they claimed, that all appliance repairmen work on Saturday. This was absolutely not anti-Semitism, they said.
Rather, adopting the same stance as our friend real-brisker, Sears said that it was simply a business decision because Saturday is the busiest day for appliance repairs and they need everyone to work on Saturday.
Once the charges were filed, subpoenas were issued and guess what? It turns out that Saturday is not the busiest day for appliance repairs; the busiest day is actually Tuesday. Thus, the reason not to allow the frum guys off on Saturday was determined to not be a business decision.
There are government agencies and companies that work 24/7/365. It is now crystal clear that many of these firms can find 35 hours out of the 168 in any week for a frum Jew to work. From this standpoint (I do not speak of Halacha) there is no reason why a frum person could not work for the phone company or the Transit Authority or the NYPD, to name just three examples.
How many of you continue to vote for the same people (e.g. Schumer, et al.) who do nothing about this?January 27, 2011 5:19 am at 5:19 am #735555
Homeowner – The OP did not say anything about AS, rather It could have well been a buissnes decsion. Thus being, Why in the world would I have to know anything about law? If a company needs to hire a worker with certain qualifications, anyone without these qualification ARE NOT DESERVENT OF THE JOB, PERIOD. Where am I discouraging? What did I say wrong? You did not answer me what you would do if you were the manager seeking the employee???January 27, 2011 2:48 pm at 2:48 pm #735557
Exactly what the OP means is very unclear. Was this person already an employee with a work schedule that was being changed to include saturdays? Was this an applicant for a job that listed saturday work as a requirement? Is this an employee who suddenly woke up one day and decided hey, I cant work saturdays any longer and used religion as the reason?
Seems to be a case that goes way beyond forcing someone to work on saturday.
Found this on the web @ freepressrelease.com
Trial Date Set in Jewish Discrimination Lawsuit Against Louis Vuiton
January 11, 2011
Trial has been set for July 7, 2011, in the lawsuit that was filed by a former employee at Louis Vuitton’s Rodeo Drive shop in Beverly Hills, California.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Free-Press-Release.com) January 11, 2011 — A trial date has been set in a lawsuit filed by a former employee of Louis Vuitton’s famous Rodeo Drive store in Beverly Hills, California. The former long-time employee of Louis Vuitton claims that the Rodeo Drive store fostered a culture of discrimination where store managers and salespeople frequently mocked Jewish clients.
Lawsuit documents filed in Los Angeles Superior Court state that the Jewish ex-employee was subjected to retaliation and terminated after complaining about religious harassment by her supervisor and about Louis Vuitton’s practice of forcing salespeople to work every Saturday and on religious holidays. According to legal documents, under Louis Vuitton’s policies, Jewish employees who wanted to attend Saturday religious services were required to use-up their limited number of vacation days and give up taking a vacations. After using up their vacations, Jewish employees could not attend Saturday services or have a Jewish holiday off until the following year. The ex-employee had requested unpaid time off to participate in a religious pilgrimage to Israel.
(last paragraph purposely not copied)
Trial is set for July 7, 2011, at the Los Angeles Superior Court.January 27, 2011 7:23 pm at 7:23 pm #735558
It doesn’t even sound as the victim is frum. She might actually win because it doesn’t sound like an accommodation case, just a discrimination case. My advice to anyone who wants to sue -never sue under religious accommodation, sue under disparate treatment. (If suing in federal court.) So you are not subject to that TWA vs. Hardison case where everything is an “undue hardship”. After what I’ve seen with my own cases, I wouldn’t be surprised if courts would rule -Hey, you caused some manager to blow their nose, Ah ha -“undue hardship”!
Homeowner – I did it “pro-se”. Noone wanted to take the case “Pro-bono”. Now don’t go saying they didn’t want it because I didn’t have a case. Research my case and then talk.January 28, 2011 4:54 am at 4:54 am #735559
real-brisker, is this deliberate or do you just not get it?
The requirement to work a certain day must be a bona fide condition of employment, not one set up to exclude specific people as was shown in the Sears case I cited above.
Again, why are you siding with employers who discriminate against people who observe Shabbos?
Health, please don’t play mind reader. I have no opinion about your case because I have no information.
I do have an opinion, however, about two other things. First, appearing pro se in major litigation makes as much sense as practicing medicine on yourself with a serious medical condition. You have no education, knowledge, skills and experience to prepare you for the task at hand.
Second, years ago, there was an organization called COLPA, the National Jewish Commission of Law and Public Affairs which helped people specifically with cases like this. I wonder why it doesn’t exist any longer.January 28, 2011 6:14 am at 6:14 am #735560
Homeowner – “I do have an opinion, however, about two other things. First, appearing pro se in major litigation makes as much sense as practicing medicine on yourself with a serious medical condition. You have no education, knowledge, skills and experience to prepare you for the task at hand.”
I agree. But I had one choice either sue them Pro se or let them win without a fight. I picked the former.January 28, 2011 6:19 am at 6:19 am #735561
Homeowner – I am siding with an employer that wants to hire a worker that will fullfill the reason for what he is hiring him for. If an employer wants an employee that will work on saturday, than turning him down because he is jewish and keeps shbbos is not the reason, rather its the effect, and there is absolutley nothing wrong with this. What is the problem you seem to have with this?January 28, 2011 6:56 am at 6:56 am #735562
RB -The problem he has -it’s against the law, officially.
Look most people don’t want to pay taxes and it’s logical to say you should be able to keep your own money. But they pay anyway because they don’t want to break the law. People should accommodate Shabbos observers because they shouldn’t want to break the law, whether they can get away with it or not.January 28, 2011 1:46 pm at 1:46 pm #735563
Health – What is the law? The law says that an employer must hire a person even though they don’t need him, because he is not interested on working on the day you want?January 28, 2011 2:20 pm at 2:20 pm #735564
You cant make rules that eliminate certain groups of people from qualifying for the job unless it is VITAL to the performance of the job. Manning the cash register on sunday instead of a saturday is not an inconvenience for a major chain store. For a mom and pop shop with 2 employees it would be different. Reasonable accomodation is the key phrase here. Dont think small 13th ave boutique, think national chain store.January 28, 2011 5:34 pm at 5:34 pm #735565
apushatayid, very good summary.
Good Shabbos!January 28, 2011 6:54 pm at 6:54 pm #735566
Homeowner – Good Shabbos to you too!January 28, 2011 8:22 pm at 8:22 pm #735567
Please. I don’t think you should have to ‘take’ anything, and never implied otherwise. Everyone is entitled to demand that they not be discriminated against, and if what is happening is indeed discrimination then by all means go ahead and make a big deal about it. I don’t think we are living in pre-war Europe or the middle ages.
HOWEVER, my point is: There are organizations such as the NAACP, which, though they defend a worthy cause, are often subject to being subtly mocked and looked down upon in pop culture and the media, not due to latent racism, but simply because among the righteous causes they defend they also seem to sometimes make a stink over pettiness. Similarly, by Jews getting together and crying anti-semitism over pettiness and what is regarded by the average thinking American as not religiously discriminatory in the slightest, generates a public opinion that looks down upon us.
No, I am not worried that someone will get locked up for saying something against the ‘establishment’. But sometimes we do wish to have public opinion on our side, and this kind of thing, in my humble opinion, ruins our chances. And besides, when the general public sees us as petty, I think it is a big chillul Hashem.January 30, 2011 4:46 am at 4:46 am #735568
yitayningwut, getting the opportunity to work a 35 hour week for a company or organization that is open many hours more than that is hardly “petty.”January 30, 2011 2:34 pm at 2:34 pm #735569
No, but claiming something is anti-semitism when it is not, is.January 30, 2011 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm #735570
If you read the summary of the lawsuit, it is a LOT more than simply making an employee work on saturday.January 30, 2011 7:08 pm at 7:08 pm #735571
yitayningwut- It might not be blatant anti-semitism, but a lot of times that is the root cause. The companies that refused to hire me, may have felt they have the right to deny any employment to anyone who won’t work on Sat. But after I filed a complaint with EEOC, why did they dogdly pursue it? It must have been underlying anti-semitism. Till this day, I can’t figure out why the Judge ruled that it was “undue hardship” logically; and acc. to the TWA case it isn’t. I don’t even see any hardship at all why I couldn’t not work that day. Perhaps the Judge is covertly anti-semitic. The biggest hardship they had- was paying the lawyer to defend them!
It’s very sad that this occurs in today’s day and age against Shabbos observers. I’m not the only yid to be a victim of this, so how come you have no feelings towards other Jews?January 30, 2011 8:24 pm at 8:24 pm #735572
I’m not the only yid to be a victim of this, so how come you have no feelings towards other Jews?
A superb question!
yitayningwut, I cited the Sears case which I feel was blatant anti-Semitism. How can you not agree?January 31, 2011 2:21 am at 2:21 am #735573
I have no objection to the Sears case. And I feel deeply for anyone who is indeed a victim of anti-semitism.
My point was to agree with real-brisker, who in my opinion made a very valid point in his first post, when he wrote, and I quote: “A company can tell you if they want you to work only mornings, only a few times a week, and only on certain days. If you don’t like it don’t work for them!”
If there is evidence that the company in question is motivated by antisemitism, as in fact later posters have implied, then yes, I think this company should be sued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. My intention was only to side with the general notion of the statement previously mentioned, as I did not feel that the bashing he got was warranted. This is because I do believe there is a trend in some circles to cry antisemitism about anything and everything, as in the garbage truck anecdote.
However, seeing that there seem to be legitimate grounds to make this claim here, kol hakavod, and the point I made is not relevant to this particular case.January 31, 2011 3:47 am at 3:47 am #735574
yitayningwut -It’s funny that you think yidden have nothing better to do than to cry wolf about employment discrimination. The tzoros I was put through to even make a claim that the gov. would even notice it to do an investigation was definitely not worth it for any yid. But I definitely saw different groups, non-yidden, screaming discrimination. From discussing it with them, most of their stories sounded like they were crying wolf. But after I researched a lot of court cases about discrimination, I found many of these non-yidden discrimination cases that actually won. Some of these court cases were so farfetched it seemed a bias from the court or jury on the plaintiff’s side. On the other hand, I found so few Shabbos accommodation cases that actually won. You’re right it can’t be discrimination due to antisemitism, I must be paranoid! I did admit though, that it doesn’t start out that way, but once you ask to be given off for religious purposes, that’s when the “Sinah” kicks in!January 31, 2011 4:32 am at 4:32 am #735575
yitayningwut – Thanks for backing me, I gave up on arguing because I saw I was getting no where with him. Glad you agree with me!January 31, 2011 3:48 pm at 3:48 pm #735576
RB – Instead of giving up because you couldn’t win, you should have admitted you are wrong. The problem you have is that since you found a logical reason that the employer is right, you fail to understand that it could still be illegal. Once an employer does something illegal, he has no right to claim -even logical reasons behind it. Their arrogance not to admit wrongdoing is partially due to their anti-semitism!January 31, 2011 4:08 pm at 4:08 pm #735577
RB, Health enjoys skewing what posters say and not really being factual all the time. I’ve given up and recommend you do the same. Sanity is well worth it.January 31, 2011 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm #735578
SJS – Thanks for backing me up too!January 31, 2011 4:12 pm at 4:12 pm #735579
Health – I still dont belive its ileagal to hire a worker only on the day you want him to work.January 31, 2011 4:40 pm at 4:40 pm #735580
RB -Keep changing the scenario for your benefit. No Yid goes to respond to an ad looking for a part time job only for Sat. They apply for regular part time or full time jobs. Some of these jobs include Sat. The employer by law can’t say I’m not going to hire you because you won’t work on Sat. which is one of the days included, unless they have an “undue hardship” which would prevent them from accommodating you!January 31, 2011 7:24 pm at 7:24 pm #735582
Health – Well a full time job means FULL TIME, Not off on saturday.January 31, 2011 8:07 pm at 8:07 pm #735583January 31, 2011 8:09 pm at 8:09 pm #735584
Full time normally means 40 hours a week (sometimes it is 36 – sometimes more, sometimes less) regardless of how many days those hours are accrued. Nurses for example typically work 3, 12 hour shifts a week.February 3, 2011 2:44 am at 2:44 am #735585
For what it’s worth, it looks like making employees work every Saturday can equal discrimination.
In the case of Louis Vuitton, the person who is suing had worked at the company a long time and had been allowed to take time off work for temple. Then an Iranian lady became the new manager. The Iranian Lady had a problem with the employee taking time off for temple and apparently made comments that offended the Jewish employee.
Nest thing, the Jewish employee calls the company’s headquarters in New York. After that the manager learns about the employee’s phone call and then institutes a policy requiring the Jewish employee to work every Saturday. This policy allegedly was enforced on all employees.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.