Taxpayer-Funded Dhimmitude

I’ll be blogging eventually about the JFK terror plot, especially since it appears to involve my old pal from Trinidad, Sheikh Yasin Abu Bakr. But that’s not the most important jihad story of the day.

If the JFK plotters had carried out their plan, the result would have been spectacular and deadly, another abomination brought to you by the Religion of Peace. This kind of attack is the bread-and-circuses act for Al Qaeda and its affiliates. They’ve got to attempt it; the masses of the faithful within the Ummah expect it of them. The thirst for infidel blood must be quenched.

Yet the real action — the ongoing destruction of our culture and our way of life — is proceeding quietly and continuously behind the scenes. The erosion of our institutions doesn’t garner many headlines, but all the while our attention is focused on all the blood and carnage on CNN, our society is being eroded from within. It impacts all of us every day, and, to make matters worse, the process is aided and abetted by our own government.

Consider this successful EEOC lawsuit against Alamo Rent A Car on behalf of Ms. Bilan Nur:

A federal jury has ordered Alamo Rent A Car to pay a Muslim woman $287,640 for firing her because she refused to remove a head scarf she was wearing during the holy month of Ramadan.

The firing of Bilan Nur, then 22, came just four months after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the company for what it termed a “post 9/11 backlash,” alleging that she was fired because of her religious beliefs in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver ruled last year that the government had proven religious discrimination and Alamo had shown no proof that it had taken reasonable steps to allow Nur to follow her beliefs before firing her.

That left the jury in the trial that ended Friday with only the question of how much damages to award, said Mary Jo O’Neill, the regional attorney for the EEOC.

The jury in the three-day trial awarded Nur $21,640 in back wages, $16,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages.

Nur, a Somali who fled the war-ravaged country and came to the U.S. in 1998, was hired by Alamo as a rental agent at its Phoenix office in November, 1999. Her job performance was described as “fine,” until the events leading to her firing, Judge Silver wrote in her ruling.

But that changed in 2001, when Nur asked her bosses at Alamo for permission to wear a head scarf during Ramadan, which began November 16. She was told that she could wear a scarf while in the back office, but must remove it when she came to the counter to help customers.

The company’s dress code did not specifically ban scarves but contained a provision barring any “garments or item of clothing not specifically mentioned in the policy.”

Nur showed up for work wearing a head scarf anyway, and was sent home and issued a written warning. The next day, she again arrived at work wearing a scarf and was written up and sent home, then suspended and fired.

The company argued in its court papers that Nur’s religious beliefs did not conflict with her job requirements because her “personal practice” did not require that she always wear a head scarf during Ramadan, Silver wrote. They noted that the year before, management had ordered her not to wear a scarf and she complied. She also worked for several days after Ramadan began in 2001 without raising the issue, suggesting to the company that her religious beliefs were not that strong.

Silver rejected that argument, writing that Nur’s words and actions — consistently telling supervisors she needed to wear a head covering and continuing to wear one — was consistent with a sincere religious belief. She also said there was no testimony showing Nur hadn’t worn a scarf all through the holy period.

Alamo spokesman Charles L. Pulley said Saturday the company would have no comment on the verdict. Alamo is owned by Tulsa, Okla.-based Vanguard Car Rental Group Inc., which also owns National Car Rental.

O’Neill said Alamo continued to deny it had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act during the nearly six years since the case was filed, and the judge’s ruling and Friday’s jury award showed they were wrong.

“Title VII protects people of all religious beliefs,” O’Neill said. “No one should have to sacrifice their religious beliefs in order to keep a job.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as we all know, is the one of the many tentacles that the federal government extends into our private affairs with the mission of enforcing diversity, to ensure that no one is discriminated against because of race, gender, religion, sexual preference, species, or planet of origin. The EEOC is the National Racial Bean Counting Agency, and it makes sure that you., Mr. Joe Citizen, are never discriminated against or harassed for any federally-protected reason.

If you visit the EEOC website, you’ll see the highly organized and lengthy requirements for compliance. The “EEOC en Español” at the top of the page tells you something in itself — requiring the use of English is a racist act, and we will not tolerate it.

Now consider the implications of Ms. Nur’s victory against Alamo Rent A Car:

• Forget any dress codes for employees. They don’t exist. Even if employers put the policy in writing, and you sign off on it before you take the job, it doesn’t matter. If your religion requires you to shave one side of your head and wear a tutu on Goibniu’s Feast Day, your boss has to let you do it. If your appearance where you stand behind the counter is so alarming that the customers stay away in droves — well, that’s just too bad.
  
• Employers do not have any control over their places of business. The federal government, especially the organs concerned with “diversity”, have the final say.
  
• One way or another, diversity is expensive. Whether an employer is required to hire the incompetent, or cater to the special needs of protected groups, or contract with consultants to make sure he is in compliance with federal regulations, or pay off expensive lawsuits — the consumer foots the bill.
  
• Last, but not least, the Islamic pressure groups have found the Achilles heel of our culture of tolerance. They’ve learned how to game the system. Ms. Nur’s little windfall is just one of thousands of operations that are underway simultaneously across the entire Western world. Add to the petrodollars the litigation bonanza — or the fear of it — and the Wahhabists have won a clear victory.

In researching this post, I ran across a PowerPoint presentation entitled “EEOC Legal Update”. It was given by Mary Jo O’Neill last year at the 24th Annual Industry Liaison Group National Conference in Phoenix.
- - - - - - - - - -
In her slide presentation, Ms. O’Neill mentioned Ms. Nur’s case:

EEOC v. Alamo Rent A Car
(D.Az. 2006)

• Employer would not let Bilan Nur, a Muslim woman, wear her head covering while working the counter?
  
• QUERE: Is this policy violate Title VII?
  
• HELD: The EEOC won summary judgment on liability; this refusal to accommodate Ms. Nur’s religious practice and belief violated Title VII.

There are many other examples put forward to illustrate the potential issues facing employers and government agencies. Here are two taken at random:

Maldonado v. City of Altus
433 F.3rd 1294 (10th Cir.2006)

• Spanish speaking employees challenged English only rules under disparate treatment and disparate impact theories.
  
• QUERE: Can this be a claim under Title VII?
  
• HELD: Yes.

El-Hakem v. BJY Inc.
415 F3rd 1068 (9th Cir. 2005)

• Employer repeatedly called plaintiff by a westernized version of his name.
  
• QUERE: Could this be national origin and/ or racial harassment?
  
• HELD: Yes. The frequency and pervasiveness of the conduct rose to the level, although it was not severe.

Once again, it’s clear that any requirement to use the English language is racist and discriminatory. As for the last example — what egregious “westernized” name did the employer use to harass his employee? The boss called “Mamdouh El-Hakem ‘Manny’ and ‘Hank’ despite El-Hakem’s strenuous objections over a period of almost a year.”

I won’t deny that the CEO of BJY Inc. was a boor, and maybe even an asshole. But why does the federal government have to get involved?

Note yet again that it is a Muslim who has gamed the system.

The Phoenix conference was organized to keep Human Resources executives abreast of the latest trends and laws, to help them avoid the pitfalls (and the expense) of federally mandated and funded legal action. Here are some of the other workshop topics:

• The Mantel-Haenszel and Breslow-Day defined: Combining adverse impact analyses across multiple events
  
• The Seven Keys to Unlocking the Passion for Diversity
  
• Using Your AAP as a Management Tool for Issue Spotting and Prevention of Litigation
  
• How to Establish Defensible Basic Qualifications (BQs) under the new OFCCP Internet Applicant Regulations
  
• Collaboration as a Tool for Diversity
  
• How to Build an AAP [Affirmative Action Program]
  
• Basic Laws — Executive Order 11246 and Title VII
  
• Functional Affirmative Action Programs
  
• Topic: Recordkeeeping: What’s Required? Why is it Important?
  
• Are the New Compensation Guidelines Significant at the .05 Level?

All these mind-numbing and sleep-inducing sessions are necessary because the federal government regulates the affairs of private organizations in minute detail. Your employer pays your plane fare, the exorbitant room rate at the conference center, picks up the tab for your meals and your bar bill, and all because he wants to make sure that the U.S. government will find his business “in compliance”.

And it’s not just the EEOC. The federal government is riddled through with this kind of claptrap like a metastasized cancer. It has spread to state and local governments, and also to the larger private corporations, which can’t wait to line up, bend over, and do it just the way Uncle Sugar wants them to.

If any part of your business contracts with the federal government — and federal spending is so massive and widespread that this covers a lot of companies — the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs is there to make sure you count your black, Hispanic, female, disabled, and lesbian beans correctly. Check out their website and see what the friendly folks at OFCCP are doing with your tax dollars.

All of this would be an amusing —albeit expensive — parlor game except for the fact that the Great Islamic Jihad is not only at our doorstep, it’s inside the house and rummaging around in our cupboards. The mujahideen have found our soft underbelly in all these diversity scams, and they’re going to milk the “religion” clauses for all they’re worth.

That’s how sharia will find its way into American jurisprudence — through the fair and tolerant programs of the EEOC and similar agencies, and all at taxpayer expense. You are paying through the nose for the rope which will hang you.

Call it a down-payment on the jizyah.

By the way — there was no mention in the literature for the Phoenix conference of a separate room for Muslim women, or of a licensed ASL person to sign for the hearing-impaired in among the attendees.

Obviously they are amateurs.