Tuesday, October 25, 2016


by -
muslim rights

In the aftermath of the San Bernardino terrorist attacks the Obama administration has issued a new warning regarding workplace discrimination “against individuals who are, or perceived to be, Muslim or Middle Eastern.”

American businesses are to accommodate the religious needs of Muslims and assure that they aren’t being harassed or intimidated, states the order which was issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the bloated federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws. Those who don’t oblige will be prosecuted by the administration for violating federal law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Right Act which prohibits discrimination on the bases of religion.

“The attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, in late 2015 and other recent world events have heightened concerns about workplace protections for all employees, including individuals who are, or are perceived to be, Muslim or Middle Eastern,” the EEOC asserts in its recently issued document. “Discrimination in the workplace based on religion, national origin, or race is strictly prohibited by federal and state laws. Reactions in the workplace to world events demand increased efforts by employers to prevent discrimination.” EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang refers to Muslims as “vulnerable communities” that need protection “even as we grapple with the concerns raised by the recent terrorist attacks.”

In the last few years the administration has sued a number of U.S. businesses for violating Muslim civil rights under Title VII, including companies in Nebraska, California and Colorado for not accommodating prayer breaks and forbidding Islamically-mandated headscarves (hijabs) on the job. Just a few months ago the EEOC helped two Muslim truck drivers working for an American company in the U.S. get hefty settlements after being fired for refusing to transport alcohol because it violates their religious beliefs. American taxpayers pick up the tab for all this litigation, which is conducted in federal courts throughout the nation.

Though the effort to protect Muslim rights in the American workforce was launched the day Obama became commander-in-chief, the administration drove home the point after the San Bernardino massacre by two Islamic terrorists. The new warning urges employers and employees to be particularly mindful of instances of harassment, intimidation or discrimination against Muslims and reminds businesses that accommodations for Muslim workers don’t just include time off for religious holidays but also “exceptions to dress and grooming codes.” Even if a situation does not amount to illegal harassment under federal law, the mandate asks employers to intervene in order to protect Muslim rights.

The document includes two attachments, in question-and-answer format, with hypothetical instances of discrimination. The first is geared towards employers and features two fictitious characters, Aliyyah and Susan, that encountered prejudice for their “religious attire.” An assistant manager at the store where Aliyyah applied to be a cashier believed her religious attire would make customers uncomfortable and Susan’s hijab violated an office dress code. Both instances constitute civil rights violations, according to the EEOC. The employer section also includes hypotheticals involving an Arab American named Muhammad and a Muslim named John who are harassed by colleagues about their religion.

The portion aimed at employees makes similar points with an added flare of drama. In that version the woman wearing the hijab was offered a bakery job over the phone but the manager appeared “startled” by her appearance and hired someone else. “In your situation, it appears that you were sent home because the employer had a negative reaction to your hijab, which you wear for religious reasons,” the new EEOC document asserts. A genderless Muslim character also complains about a coworker seeking “long discussions about Islam, ISIS and terrorism.” It’s possible the employer may not be helpful or might not see it as a problem at all, the EEOC concludes, encouraging Muslims that find themselves in these situations to file discrimination charges with the agency “at any time.”

by -

The Obama administration has ordered the U.S. Army to pay damages for discriminating against a transgender worker by denying the one-time man access to the women’s bathroom after he “transitioned” to female, thus changing his “gender identity.”

Additionally, the administration has determined that the Army also discriminated against the employee by failing to use his new female name (Tamara Lusardi) and instead continuing to use the name the man was originally hired under. The case involves a military veteran who worked as a civilian software specialist at the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) in Redstone, Alabama. Lusardi served in the Army from 1986 to 1993 and claims he suffered in a hostile workplace when management and co-workers kept calling him “sir” after becoming a woman and legally changing his name.

This month the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the bloated federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws, ordered the Army to pay up for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by committing sex discrimination against Lusardi. The EEOC tweaked the 1960s federal law to include transgender to the mix, asserting that it constitutes “gender identity discrimination” and therefore falls under Title VII of the Civil Rights Law. The agency defines transgender as persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.

In the order issued this month the EEOC writes that Lusardi was harassed because superiors used “male pronouns” after he identified as a woman and “referred to her using these male signifiers on at least seven occasions.” The Army also violated Lusardi’s rights by refusing to let him use the women’s bathroom, the EEOC asserts. The document includes testimony from an Army official explaining that Lusardi was assigned a single-user executive restroom because other female employees would feel “extremely uncomfortable having an individual, despite the fact that she is conducting herself as a female, is still basically a male, physically.”

Allowing a man to use the women’s bathroom would cause more problems than having the individual use a private restroom, the official, identified as the Deputy Program Manager of the Program Executive Office, goes on to explain. “I also thought that under the circumstances, the male restroom would be inappropriate. So, that was left to use the single use bathrooms.” Lusardi used the women’s bathroom anyways and management repeatedly asked him to use the gender-neutral executive restroom until he underwent the final surgery for the sex change because it was making other employees uncomfortable.

There is no cause to question that complainant—who was assigned the sex of male at birth but identifies as female—is female, the EEOC writes in its order. “And certainly where, as here, a transgender female has notified her employer that she has begun living and working full-time as a woman, the agency must allow her access to the women’s bathroom,” the EEOC says. “This ‘real-life experience’ often is crucial to a transgender employee’s transition.” The agency found that the Army’s actions were sufficiently severe or pervasive to subject Lusardi to a hostile work environment based on sex and ordered compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.

Under Obama the EEOC has spiraled out of control to meet the administration’s mission of operating a politically correct government. In fact, nearly half of federal agency rulings dismissing employee discrimination claims have been overturned under Obama, costing American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in settlements. In one year alone this translated into an astounding $51.4 billion that federal agencies paid to settle discrimination claims that often had no merit, according to the government’s figures. In nearly 45% of discrimination claims thrown out by agencies across the U.S. government the EEOC stepped in and revived the cases. The number has increased steadily since Obama became president, according to the EEOC’s figures.

The agency has also taken legal action against private businesses across the nation accusing them of everything from discriminating against minorities for running criminal background and credit checks to discriminating against Muslims for not allowing hijabs on the job. Last year the EEOC even went after a Green Bay Wisconsin metal and plastic manufacturer for requiring employees to speak English at work. In that case the EEOC asserted that the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on national origin, which includes the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group. Therefore, according to this absurd reasoning, foreigners have the right to speak their native language even during work hours at an American company that requires English.



When Comey, the director of the FBI decided not to charge Hillary Clinton, it looks like it had more to do with money than...