Duty To Disclose
"The two female plaintiffs, Zeller, 29, and Maloney, 28, both converted to Islam during the course of their employment at the service station and both alleged that the discriminatory behavior began shortly thereafter." -- from the same news item quoted yesterday
I repeat: who converted them, on what company time, for surely they did not become Muslims spontaneously.
And what constitutes "reasonable accommodation"? Would anyone have thought workers at a 24/7 gas station would be hired if it turned out that they insisted that they could not clean all but only some of the bathrooms? Would that be something that they had a duty to inform Exxon of before they were hired, rather than suddenly discover that they could not perform one of their essential tasks?
Don't Muslims, knowing how little Infidels know about their Total Belief-System, which regulates every detail of life, have what might be called a Duty to Disclose, so that would-be employers know exactly what they are going to have to deal with, if they hire that applicant? And one thing all would-be employers should now be put on notice is that Muslim groups are now systematically encouraging use of such lawsuits to get as much from the Infidels as possible -- to intimidate them, to make them remove all barriers to the practice of Islam, and of course, to get as much money from those unsuspecting Infidels as possible.
The law firm that has taken this case, the Washington, D.C., firm of Katz, Marshall & Banks with the Wilmington firm of Martin & Wilson as local counsel, should be, but of course is not, ashamed. Perhaps it has other business, and other clients, some of whom may wish to express their displeasure by going elsewhere, the next time they need to hire such a plaintiff's lawyer. There are plenty of firms. Why reward those who take any part whatsoever in the campaign to frighten Infidels into an accommodation that is far more than "reasonable"?
Posted on 11/08/2007 4:46 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald