Pentecostal Bus Driver Suing New York For Firing Her For Refusing To Wear Pants

<snip>

NEW YORK, May 31 A bus driver of the Pentecostal faith said she may sue the New York Transit Association for firing her just because she refused to wear pants.

Tahita Jenkins, 33, explained to her bosses that the standard issue bus driver's uniform, which required the wearing of pants, was against her religion, The New York Post reported Thursday.

She even went as far as to bring in a note from her pastor at the Holy Ghost Headquarters Prayer Band Mission of New Beginning Deliverance Church in Far Rockaway, in the New York borough of Queens, requesting that she be allowed to wear a skirt at work.

But even that didn't work and officials in the transit department insisted that she must either wear pants or culottes or lose her job.

Transit officials fired Jenkins on Tuesday and she is now considering filing a lawsuit.

A similar suit involving Brinks Inc., the armored security service, resulted in a Pentecostal woman being awarded $30,000 and offered her job back, although she had to wear culottes as a compromise.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/68093.html

It also requires that I sleep until 10 a.m. every day so I can stay up to watch Conan.

Because trading labor for money is evil.

Oops! Pardon my cynicism.

It's well known that Pentecostal women don't wear pants. It's not a scam. It's actually part of her religion. Just as a devout Muslim woman would have the right to cover her head, so this woman has the same right. I can't see how it would affect her job performance.

In my area, public school kids wear uniforms (started a few years ago). Pentecostal girls are the only ones in skirts. Otherwise, everyone has to wear pants.

or be in a bank that has a prohibition against hats, or covering the face.

Wearing a skirt vs pants isn't considered a safety issue, which a bank would considered a masked person to be.

I'm sorry, but that church's name is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long.

It's stupid both ways. Stupid she can't wear a skirt, but also I'll never understand why religion has to dictate what people wear.

I worked in a factory and steel toe boots were a requirement along with a hard hat and goggles...you couldn't be in the factory without them....you also were required to wear pants (jeans) and skirts were a big no no because a long skirt could get caught in equipment ...
...those were the days....where dressing for work didn't cost much...

if it's for her safety she needs to suck it up or find another job. c'est la vie...

of a crash or a fire - but I think the bus company should have to present some evidence of that beyond so-called 'common sense.'

that would be a hazard for bus drivers...here are my scenarios..

1. really long dresses/skirts are a hazard when going up and down steps which buses have. Which is why "ladies" must hold on to the rail and lift the skirt up enough to give your feet clearance on the steps...and while most of us think of long skirts for formal wear...women like pentecostals wear long skirts to cover their sexy ankles.

2. Dresses/skirts that are too tight might make walking difficult...or leg movement difficult...

3. If you were expected to repair or do anything to the bus...dresses/skirts aren't so useful when crawling under a vehicle..

4. Some skirts are forbidden in workplaces because they are too "sexy" and could be distracting...(however in this woman's case that would not be the issue).

5. I wear a lot of long skirts and I find they get caught on stuff...(I wear the gauzy hippy type skirts)...

I'd have to know what problem they have with her wearing a skirt. If it's just that it isn't the uniform, then I agree with her. But maybe they have a legitimate reason for requiring pants, like some kind of safety thing? I can't imagine what when just driving a bus, but then that's not a job I've had so I don't want to assume.

I doubt it is a safety issue if it is bus-driving.

The city probably requires uniformity of appearance so that legitimate drivers are instantly recognized as such. The uniform campany either does not provide skirts or the city had to choose one or the other. Having chose pants, the city probably was not able to acquire uniform skirts without considerable expense. Another possibility is that the uniforms are unisex.

Many, not all, Pentecostal churches believe men and women should wer different clothing as a way of not blurring what they see as their differing social roles. And yes, there are passages of scripture they quote to support this belief. It may not make you or I comfortable, but we don't always get to be comfortable. C'est la vie.

I had a friend in high school who belonged to the Church of God in Christ. She got a job at McDonald's and when it came time to get her uniform, which included pants, they were great about accomodating her need to wear a skirt. She had to wear the uniform top, but could wear any skirt that went with it, except denim--to look "professional" (at McDonald's, yeah, I know). So, she wore her unifrom with blue or brown skirts, and all went well.

I also have several friends who are Apostolic Christian. They have to wear skirts, too. It's amazing how good they are at getting around, moving, working, doing things I would NEVER consider doing except in pants. It's second nature to them.

I suspect this woman could do her job just as well in a skirt. Since the transit authority is a government entity, she'll win on constitutional grounds.

If she was already working there and they changed the policy I think she is justified.

if she took the job knowing the dress code interfered with her religious beliefs then not so much.

:hide: