Orlando, Fla., Jul 20, 2019 / 06:01 am (CNA).- An Orlando-area McDonald’s is being sued for denying employment to a man on account of his beard.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed the lawsuit on the man’s behalf, said in their lawsuit that the McDonald’s manager told the man that “he could not hire him because doing so would violate McDonald’s policies and the law,” News 6 in Orlando reported.
According to the lawsuit, the man told the restaurant that he was a Hasidic Jew and that his religious beliefs prevented him from shaving his beard, but that he offered to wear a beard net instead. He was applying for the position of a maintenance worker at the restaurant in September 2016.
His employment was still denied. The EEOC filed a lawsuit with the Orlando McDonald’s July 17, three years after the incident. The man is asking for three years worth of back pay for the job in damages, News 6 reported.
Hasidic Judaism is an orthodox movement within Judaism in which men do not shave their beards, per instructions in the Torah. In the lawsuit, the EEOC argues that McDonald’s violated the man’s rights by declining his employment due to his religious beliefs.
In an interview with News 6, Rabbi David Kay with Congregation Ohev Shalom in Maitland, another Orlando suburb, explained that the beard was an “expression of faith” for Hasidic Jewish men, and that he considered the lawsuit to be a teaching moment on Jewish traditions.
“Anytime we have the opportunity to expand our awareness and understanding of how faith traditions express themselves, I think that’s a plus,” Kay told News 6.
McDonald’s had not responded to News 6 requests for comment by press time. It is unclear why this lawsuit is being filed now instead of immediately after the incident occurred.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Washington D.C., Oct 10, 2017 / 02:52 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A political advertisement for pro-life Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has been blocked by Twitter for statements about Planned Parenthood selling fetal body parts for medical research.
“I’m 100 percent pro-life. I fought Planned Parenthood, and we stopped the sale of baby parts, thank God,” Blackburn says in her video.
Twitter blocked the ad, telling the Blackburn campaign that the comment was “deemed an inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction.”
The tech company said the advertisement would be reinstated if the comment was removed.
Blackburn encouraged her supporters to join her in “standing up to Silicon Valley” by sharing the video. Although the video cannot be part of a paid promotion on Twitter, users can link to the video on the site and retweet Blackburn’s post of the video.
<blockquote class=”twitter-tweet” data-lang=”en”><p lang=”en” dir=”ltr”>.<a href=”https://twitter.com/Twitter?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>@Twitter</a> shut down our video ad, claiming it's "inflammatory" & "negative." Join me in standing up to Silicon Valley → RETWEET our message! <a href=”https://t.co/K3w4AMgW6i”>pic.twitter.com/K3w4AMgW6i</a></p>— Marsha Blackburn (@VoteMarsha) <a href=”https://twitter.com/VoteMarsha/status/917457080025481216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>October 9, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src=”//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-8″></script>
Blackburn is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Tennessee which will be left open by the retirement of current senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
Earlier in the two-and-a-half-minute video, Blackburn claims that the “left calls me a wingnut or a knuckle-dragging conservative,” criticizes the Senate’s failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and affirms her support of Second-Amendment rights and the Trump Administration’s immigration policies.
After investigative reporting by the Center for Medical Progress which revealed Planned Parenthood’s practice of taking money from medical research companies in exchange for aborted fetal tissue, Blackburn chaired a Republican-run House panel to investigate the organization and fetal tissue research more broadly.
After their investigation, she and her panel urged Congress to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood.
The practice of fetal tissue donation is legal in the United States if the donating company makes no profit off of the transaction. Planned Parenthood has since announced that it would no longer donate aborted fetal tissue for reimbursement.
Pro-life activists criticized Twitter’s move to refuse promotion of the ad.
“We are profoundly disappointed, but not surprised that Twitter continues to censor pro-life speech,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life advocacy organization, Susan B. Anthony List, in a statement.
“While we have observed that this censorship seems to be applied selectively to pro-life groups, Twitter’s move has broad, chilling implications for all sorts of advocacy and political speech. We hope anyone seeking to engage in political speech will join us in denouncing the censorship of Rep. Blackburn,” Dannenfelser said.
“Such heavy-handed tactics only backfire on those who use them.”
New York City, N.Y., Sep 22, 2017 / 12:47 am (CNA/EWTN News).- At a United Nations gathering in New York City, a Holy See official stressed the need for a multi-pronged approach in fighting human trafficking and aiding victims.
Anna Lulis from Moneta, Virginia, (left) who works for the pro-life group Students for Life of America, stands beside an abortion rights demonstrator outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2022, after the court’s decision in the Dobbs abortion case was announced. / Katie Yoder/CNA
Washington D.C., Jun 24, 2022 / 17:21 pm (CNA).
Hundreds of people — both pro-life advocates and abortion supporters — descended upon the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., Friday following the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973.
Multiple layers of barriers and fencing — along with uniformed police officers — separated protesters from the court itself. Gathered under bright sunshine on a hot, summer day, some abortion supporters and pro-life advocates engaged in conversations with one another in the street in front of the court that was closed to traffic. Media cameras stood ready to capture any dramatic moments.
“I couldn’t be more thrilled,” 24-year-old Anna Lulis from Moneta, Virginia, told CNA of the lives she believes the decision will save. “I think this is a huge step forward for human rights.”
Working for the pro-life group Students for Life of America, Lulis estimated that more than 200 pro-life students were outside the court when it issued its historic 6-3 decision. But, as the day progressed, abortion activists gradually made up a large majority of the crowd.
The scene outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., after the court released its decision in the Dobbs abortion case on June 24, 2022. Pro-abortion demonstrators gradually made up a decided majority of the crowd as the day wore on. Katie Yoder/CNA
Lulis carried a sign declaring, “Women don’t need Roe!” As she spoke, abortion activists led various chants with megaphones. Among the refrains: “Legal abortion on demand right f*ing now!” and “f* you, SCOTUS,” using the acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States.
Colorful signs with colorful language flooded the street. “F*** SCOTUS we’re doing it anyway” one pro-abortion poster read. “You will never control my body,” said another. Some women demonstrators outraged by Friday’s decision shook hangers at the court, referencing the view that overturning Roe will mean a return to illegal abortions in some parts of the country.
Abortion activists, at one point, directed their middle fingers in unison at the court building. Others took a calmer approach.
Pierrerasha Goodwin, an abortion rights supporter, stands outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2022. She intervened on behalf of a pro-life activist when a conversation between that activist and abortion supporter became heated. Katie Yoder/CNA
Pierrerasha Goodwin, 22, intervened on behalf of a pro-life activist when a conversation between that activist and abortion supporter became heated. An abortion supporter herself, Goodwin is originally from Chicago. Her first encounter with abortion came when she helped her 15-year-old sister to obtain an abortion. After that experience, she said, watching the country argue about abortion prompted her to learn more about the issue.
“If you’re going to stand for everyone else’s rights, and making sure that everyone is treated equal, you have to treat people with respect,” Goodwin said. “In doing that, fostering those important conversations, you get to actually listen to somebody and say, ‘OK, I may disagree with you, but at least now I know why people think like that.’”
Joseph Little, a 32-year-old Washington, D.C. native who supports legalized abortion, holds a sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2022. Katie Yoder/CNA
Joseph Little, a 32-year-old Washington, D.C. native, was another abortion supporter who spoke with CNA. Disheartened by the Supreme Court ruling, Little’s sign read, “Forced Birth is Enslavement.”
Little spoke about the “need” for women to be able to choose abortion, comparing their inability to get an abortion to Black enslavement.
On the other side of the issue was 22-year-old Edwin Garcia-Arzola from Lumberton, North Carolina, who wore a shirt that said “Young pro-life Democrat.” As a Catholic, he said, he was “proud” of the court’s decision.
“For us, and especially for pro-life Democrats, it is very important for us because now we can take this battle to all of our states,” he said, adding that he is affiliated with the group Democrats for Life.
Kara Zupkus, the 25-year-old spokeswoman for the conservative group, Young America’s Foundation (second from left), standing with other pro-life supporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2022, after the court released its decision in the Dobbs abortion case. Katie Yoder/CNA
Another pro-life supporter in the crowd was Kara Zupkus, 25, a spokeswoman for the conservative group Young America’s Foundation. Members of the group were there to celebrate the court’s decision.
“We work with high school and college students to bring pro-life speakers to their campuses and host activism initiatives on campus,” Zupkas said. “To finally see our hard work pay off …. It has been just amazing.”
Is this lawsuit about the job, or about the money? Three years back wages? For what? I am not so sure that a “beard net” sounds that appetizing. Some of these rules are in place to keep the food sanitary. How reliable is the net? Is this guy working yet? And why didnt he apply for jobs outside the food industry so the beard would not be an issue? Like at Walmart or as a bank teller?? There are too many people who think the world has to adapt to THEM.
I have not set foot in a McDonald’s since the Covid pandemic began, and the Southwest Salad with balsamic vinegar dressing was removed from the menu (along with all the other salads: not an example of an anti-Southwest cuisine agenda), but If I recall correctly, the “crew” at McDonald’s does not routinely wear hair nets.
Is there any scientific evidence that beard hairs, which the plaintiff offered to attempt to control with a beard net, are statistically more likely to fall out during food preparation than hairs from the head? The beard hairs would be more noticeable, which I would consider to be an advantage, being on a beard hair free diet.
For some reason, I have access to Quora at work, and came across this:
How does McDonald’s get away with their employees never wearing hairnets and most young female employees wearing their hair in ponytails, again with no hair nets?
Answer:
Corrie Saeger, former General Manager at Burger King (2001-2021)
Answered August 5, 2019
The local health department calls the shots on this one. If they require them, then establishments preparing food must wear them. But many (at least in Iowa) don’t require them.
I am sure McDonald’s has corporate image standards, but would be surprised if hairnets were one of them.
Those little black disposable hairnets are more likely to wind up in your food then some strand of hair from a pony tail. What’s even more likely, is that a pet hair comes off your shirt and into your food. I know I’ve found my dog’s hair in my food when I was eating out.
Is this lawsuit about the job, or about the money? Three years back wages? For what? I am not so sure that a “beard net” sounds that appetizing. Some of these rules are in place to keep the food sanitary. How reliable is the net? Is this guy working yet? And why didnt he apply for jobs outside the food industry so the beard would not be an issue? Like at Walmart or as a bank teller?? There are too many people who think the world has to adapt to THEM.
I have not set foot in a McDonald’s since the Covid pandemic began, and the Southwest Salad with balsamic vinegar dressing was removed from the menu (along with all the other salads: not an example of an anti-Southwest cuisine agenda), but If I recall correctly, the “crew” at McDonald’s does not routinely wear hair nets.
Is there any scientific evidence that beard hairs, which the plaintiff offered to attempt to control with a beard net, are statistically more likely to fall out during food preparation than hairs from the head? The beard hairs would be more noticeable, which I would consider to be an advantage, being on a beard hair free diet.
For some reason, I have access to Quora at work, and came across this:
How does McDonald’s get away with their employees never wearing hairnets and most young female employees wearing their hair in ponytails, again with no hair nets?
Answer:
Corrie Saeger, former General Manager at Burger King (2001-2021)
Answered August 5, 2019
The local health department calls the shots on this one. If they require them, then establishments preparing food must wear them. But many (at least in Iowa) don’t require them.
I am sure McDonald’s has corporate image standards, but would be surprised if hairnets were one of them.
Those little black disposable hairnets are more likely to wind up in your food then some strand of hair from a pony tail. What’s even more likely, is that a pet hair comes off your shirt and into your food. I know I’ve found my dog’s hair in my food when I was eating out.
I should brush her more often.
This sounds like fishing for a lawsuit. McDonald’s is not Kosher. Why would an ultra-orthodox/Hasidic Jew seek work there?