Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Muslima wins lawsuit against church in PA: they made her take lunch during Ramadan

Aside from the fact that Monsignor Edward Zemanik of St. Anthony of Padua Church in Easton, PA encouraged all his workers to take time off during the day, federal law requires employers to give, and employees to take at least 30 minutes for lunch every day.  Evidently, Omayma Arafa was insulted that she had to take a lunch break, and during Ramadan, wouldn't you know.  I have had to take lunch-time when I was not hungry, or at a time where I could not eat what I wanted, so I just ate when I could and did not complain.  Then again, I am not a Muslim looking for special treatment at the workplace.

The church never should have settled.  This is a precedent to be used in the future by other Muslims who feel slighted at their treatment by the hands of the infidel.

From The Pocono Record January 3

Muslim woman settles lawsuit against Easton church

A Muslim woman who claimed she was fired from her job as a bookkeeper at an Easton church because she complained about religious discrimination by the monsignor has settled a federal lawsuit she filed against the Diocese of Allentown.

The terms of the settlement between Omayma Arafa and the diocese have not been disclosed in court documents, and attorneys on both sides of the case did not return phone calls seeking comment.

A settlement conference had been scheduled for Dec. 22 in Philadelphia, but before the hearing, the parties notified federal Magistrate Judge L. Felipe Restrepo they had reached a settlement. Restrepo dismissed the case Dec. 16.

Arafa worked at St. Anthony of Padua Church in Easton from 2007 until January 2009, when she was let go. Her lawsuit, filed in May, said the trouble began when Monsignor Edward Zemanik was assigned to the church and immediately displayed a "cold, distant and hostile attitude" toward Arafa, who is from Egypt.

One day in August 2008, the suit says Arafa was eating pizza for lunch when Zemanik asked "You can eat that?" He went on to ask Arafa whether there were foods she couldn't eat, according to Arafa's suit.

The diocese's response, filed in June, says Zemanik asked about Arafa's dietary restrictions out of respect for her religious beliefs because the staff often ordered meals and he didn't want to bring in food that she was forbidden to eat.

Arafa's suit also alleged that during Ramadan, the month of fasting when Muslims refrain from eating during daylight hours, Zemanik required Arafa to "take lunch," even though it meant sitting in her office not eating.

The diocese claims Zemanik insisted that his staff take a break during the day, even if they did not eat lunch.

In December 2008, Arafa said she asked Zemanik whether she would have the week off between Christmas and New Year's Day as paid vacation. She alleges Zemanik asked "What do you care?" in a display of hostility toward Arafa's religious beliefs.

In its response, the diocese denied Zemanik made the remark.

Arafa also claimed she was denied health care benefits that other part-time employees in the parish received. The diocese says those employees worked part time at St. Anthony and part time elsewhere in the diocese to qualify for benefits.

Arafa said she complained to the diocese's human resources director about the alleged discrimination by Zemanik and a church volunteer, but no action was taken. She claims she was fired as retaliation for complaining about her treatment.

The diocese said it eliminated Arafa's job at the church as a cost-saving measure.

The lawsuit sought compensation for Arafa's back and future pay; pain, suffering and humiliation; and punitive damages.


A Christian Woman Who Has Lived Under Shariah said...

So that nasty, mean, terrible boss "forced" this woman to take breaks and a lunch hour. Gee, what a tyrant!
As I recall from ALL of my jobs, no one ever "forced" me to EAT on my lunch hour or during my breaks; I always had the choice as to how I would spend my down time.
Working in the medical field, I was always very grateful when there were those rare quiet moments that allowed us to take a few minutes off from our many duties (it's hard to grab a few minutes between deaths, births, exsanguinations, trauma, CVA's, MI's, MVA's, etc...).
As usual Muslims play the quintessential and eternal victim, demanding TAQIYYA from the infidels in the form of law suits and settlements.
Hopefully Ms. Arafa's next boss will not allow her ANY time off for lunches or breaks.
The diocese did a stupid thing by settling with Ms. Arafa and her frivolous law suit.

A Christian Woman Who Has Lived Under Shariah said...

Meant to use the word "jizya" not taqiyya when commenting on the settlement reached by the church.
Definition of jizya:
The tax levied upon non-Muslims living within the borders of the Islamic state.
This tax is mentioned in the Qur’ān (9:29) and was understood as a right of the state in relation to its non-Muslim subjects for the sake of the supposed protection afforded them by the Islamic armies, as well as the alleged economic and legal freedoms guaranteed them as subjects of the Islamic state.
Non-Muslims who paid the jizya were known as "dhimmis", literally, "those who are protected."
The idea that Islam protects or confers benefits upon non Muslims living in Muslim states IS however taqiyya. The notion is laughable.