Episode 1 — The Number of the Beast

HWEMND
Listen to this episode

As proof that we don’t just make this stuff up, click on the case, Hyatt v. Berry Plastics Corp., to see the actual complaint brought by Billy, the employee who did not want to wear the number 666 on his work attire.

And for the Iron Maiden fans, The Number of the Beast.

And here is the EEOC’s press release explaining why it supports the rights of pantsless workers to fry chicken, both regular recipe and extra crispy.

Want to read more about the legal standards for religious accommodations?  Here’s the EEOC’s guidance.

As always, contact us, connect with us, support us, and love us:

Linkedin (please connect with me and let me know you’re a listener!)

Facebook

Contribute your unbelievable workplace stories!

Support our Patreon campaign and help keep this going!

Also, Marc has a law firm doing investigations, advice and agency charges. Hire him!

Marc also hosts fun training webinars with HRCI and SHRM credit available. Go check them out!

We’re in for a great journey together, people.

About the author, Marc

Marc Alifanz is the co-host of the Hostile Work Environment Podcast with Marc and Dennis, and founder of Four Peaks Employment Advisors. Marc lives in Portland, Oregon with his wife Tracy and precocious 8-year old twin daughters.

4 Comments

  1. Rick on 11/20/2017 at 11:38 AM

    You had me at Bikini Bariatas!

  2. Amy on 02/15/2018 at 6:38 PM

    In reference to the girl at KFC, there are several religions where women are not allowed to wear pants. My assumption is that the girl wanted to wear a skirt. I was once involved in one of those religions when I lived in the south. The Pentecostals are well known for this. I worked in a restaurant and they never had an issue with my wearing a skirt instead of pants. In most cases, those skirts are well below the knee for modesty purposes. My guess is the KFC company did not want to go away from their dress code or deal with any other “religious” accommodations they thought she would bring up. The people who are part of these religions are often ostracized by others in their communities. It is unfortunate. I just thought you would like to know since you said you weren’t quite sure why she would not wear pants. For a religious accommodation, these religions tend to be very strict, especially towards modesty with their females.

  3. Eileen on 02/23/2018 at 10:01 AM

    Great podcast! Been in HR a long time and I am still amazed by HR stories!

  4. […] Supreme Court denied certiorari in Consol Energy v. EEOC, a case we discussed in Episode 1. This is the case where a coal miner employee was fired after objecting to using a hand ID scanner […]

Leave a Comment