A bus driver was fired for refusing to drive a woman to Planned Parenthood. He didn’t know if she was going for an abortion or not but thought she might so he refused to drive her.
I’m not sure where I am on this one yet. I fully support the guy’s right not to drive someone to Planned Parenthood but doesn’t the bus company have some rights to hire drivers that will actually…you know, drive people where they want to go.
Can you really not drive people to where they want to go and still be a bus driver?
Maybe I’m missing something. So I was thinking about this and I saw this story in England where there’s a case where blind passengers are being ordered off buses because Muslim bus drivers have some kind of thing about “unclean” guide dogs. That’s certainly not cool.
Wonder if you guys have anything to add to clear this up. I’m thinking that if you own the bus company you can tell people you’re not taking them but if you work for the bus company you can be fired. Your thoughts?
July 19, 2010 at 10:34 pm
I believe the problem, really, is corporatism; buses ought to, more or less, be franchised, drivers enabled to set their own restrictions on where they will take whom, within certain limits, of course.
Problems like this wouldn't occur. The driver has every right as a person to refuse driving a woman to Planned Parenthood. The company has every right to fire someone for non-compliance with company policy.
Fix company policy by granting some level of autonomy, fix the problem.
July 19, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Transportation and shipping are under special federal rules that we have to respect. The rules permit free flow of commerce through the country and I don't think we can interrupt what is actually a very complex system.
For example, I do not fault UPS or Fedex from delivering or picking up from an abortion clinic – they are required to by law. I think the same goes for licensed transport (taxiis, busses) – I think the bus driver was wrong.
July 19, 2010 at 10:54 pm
There might be a lot more to this story (i.e. work-history, previous complaints etc). But if taken at face value, this driver did the right thing; he voiced his objection. Usually public drivers are unionized, so I'm surprised he was able to be fired so quickly (it's usually a longer review process). If he was simply fired for not performing the duties he agreed to in order to get this job, then that is the risk he took for holding to his principles (which are commendable), and he needs to deal with the consequences like a man.
But to be honest, the fact that he happens to be an ordained minister and is now suing makes this whole thing very fishy.
July 19, 2010 at 10:55 pm
I've not had a chance to watch the video. But the driver did the right thing in refusing to participate in procuring an abortion. And if the bus is a privately-owned venture, they were within their rights to fire him for insubordination.
July 19, 2010 at 11:07 pm
what will it profit me if i gain a pay check, but an innocent is exterminated
(Clarification – I was fired in 1989 for refusing to air a promotional spot for planned parenthood, i had a rough 6 months looking for another job, but i slept soundly)
July 19, 2010 at 11:19 pm
I agree that the driver did the right thing by not taking the woman but I do wonder about the guy's lawsuit citing religious freedom.
July 20, 2010 at 12:03 am
We're on the same page here.
July 20, 2010 at 3:19 am
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, a/k/a Title VII, requires employers to at least attempt a reasonable accommodation of an employee's religious objection to a job requirement. It does not impose an absolute requirement that an accommodation be given. "Reasonableness" is the key. In this case, the bus driver alerted the employer of his objection. Instead of attempting an accommodation, the employer fired him immediately. From what I understand, there were plenty of other drivers on duty who could have picked up this customer and taken her where she wanted to go. The employer's knee-jerk reaction of "you're fired!" without even considering the possibility of an accommodation is the legal problem here. The driver has a decent case under Title VII.
July 20, 2010 at 3:05 pm
He did the right thing by refusing to take her. He just has to accept the consequence for being fired. Don't make a big deal about this. Look for a job and move on. Be low key about it. But, as WPDunn says, clean conscience, soft pillow.
July 20, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Before watching the video it seemed a little ridiculous to me, but between Sarsfield's comment above which explained the requirements of Title VII and the reporter in the video stating that another driver picked up the lady and drove her to Planned Parenthood… the lawsuit seems reasonable to me.
According to Title VII, it is the employer's duty to provide a reasonable accommodation for an act contrary to an employee's religious beliefs.
Given that there were other drivers available (such that another driver was able to take the lady on the taxpayer-funded bus to PP) it seems that providing a different driver would have been a reasonable accommodation and in line with Title VII.
July 20, 2010 at 5:32 pm
I think he is within his rights to sue.
But on the other hand, think what an opportunity he missed as a minister. On the way, he could have found out if she was really going for an abortion, counseled her, witnessed to her and maybe persuaded her not to kill her baby. (This service apparently works by people specifically calling in to get a ride, so I'm presuming he was just picking up the one woman and her companion, and there wouldn't be others on the bus. Maybe I'm wrong).
Maybe by doing his job, he could have saved a life. You never know.
July 21, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Anybody remember those Somali taxi drivers at the Minneapolis airport a while back who refused to take blind passengers or anyone with a bottle of alcohol? They aren't driving anymore… Are you willing to accept Sharia-based restrictions in America on equal terms with a Christian taxi driver's beliefs?