This is surely discrimination? Or are they going to allow anyone to take a month off whenever they want? The Flying Spaghetti Monster tells me to take a month off whenever I'm feeling stressed...

Horrible, horrible precedent. And yet again: what the hell are the feds doing, meddling in a local school district?

And employees are not there to serve the whims and fancies of oppressive employers who gave no time off. Bearing the fact that employees are there to do some of the employers jobs or to increase the profit of the employers or do the menial jobs of the employers, but employees are not slave of the employers. Anyway, I am not talking about this case. All I am saying is that employees should have the same flexibilty as employers and not be pushed into a corner without a choice. Employees should not be pushed around by employers just for the convenience of employers only. Too many inconsiderate employers in asia should in fact do their own job instead of trying to enslave their employees in menial jobs.

Anyway, why don't she take a flexi job that would allow her to take time off whenever she wants? Anyway, regardless of her religion, if she wish to take no pay leave, that is her right. And she could resign when her school refused her request for leave. Surely there are other teacher to take over her job?

WLIL: Surely you are serious? In certain jobs, you have certain obligations. As a school teacher, you are obligated to take your vacation time when sxhool is not in session. Thos is almost certainly in her contract, which she voluntarily signed.

The only question here should have been: can the school sue *her* for damages, after firing her?

Did some digging and found the official DOJ news article for this case, which is quite a bit more informative:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/October/11-crt-1362.html

The article there states that she asked for a month of unpaid leave for December 2008, then quit when she couldn't get it. My question is... why didn't she do the hajj trip during the summertime, when there's three months off? Muslims only need to take the trip once in their lifetime.

WLIL: I hope you were being sarcastic. Because that is the most childish outlook I've seen in weeks.

When you take a job, you take on certain responsibilities. If you don't like your employer, or can't fulfill the duties of the job, don't take it. Or change your mind and quit. The employer does not owe you more than the benefits and salary outlined in your paycheck. He doesn't owe any particular employee "extra flexibility" or special convenience.

As far as this case, the Haj is not a yearly requirement, its a lifetime one, its supposed to be done, if memory serves, once in a LIFETIME. So this employee could have waited until after retirement to make the pilgrimage.

Robert, whetehr the employer owe her extra benefits or not is between her and her employer. Anyway, her wanting to do her pilgrimage is her personal problem. If she quit due to her own personal obligation, that is her own personal problem. Why is she asking for compensation?
Of course jobs comes with certain responsiblities. If the employees and employers were unable to meet each other needs, then both should just part ways on amicable terms.
One cannot force an unhappy employee to stay and one cannot force an employer or employee to be flexible, if they cannot be flexible.

Seventy-five thousand dollars for a FIRST YEAR TEACHER.
And not only are the taxpayers on the hook for it, they also funded the suit through the DOJ. Wow.

And employees are not there to serve the whims and fancies of oppressive employers who gave no time off.

Really? if that's the condition of the job, why take it? Also: name a job where the ranking FNG gets 30 days off at the start of their employment?

I got a new job teaching when I was pregnant. I was only four months so you couldn't tell. I disclosed to the principal that I was pregnant, and he said it didn't matter because he invests in the quality of skills the person brings to the table. So, I took my maternity leave and took a few extra weeks too. Then I came back and worked my ass off in the same manner I had while pregnant. Not only did I teach, but I was the cheerleading coach (jv, varsity, competition), the one-act-play director, and the migrant workers liason. I don't understand your offense at work places that value families. I appreciated the principal's ability to see me as a whole person instead of just a teacher with my teaching creds. I teach to make a living; it is not who I am. Who I am is my family.

Kg- you disclosed the fact that you were pregnant, plus you did not ditch the job; you came back after an agreed-upon leave. Not even close to what Amy said.

"I don't understand your offense at work places that value families." It's FORCING the employer to do so that's the issue. If you work for a family friendly employer great. However demanding that a top tier law firm or engineering company bend to your family needs but force of law is bullshit.

"So this employee could have waited until after retirement to make the pilgrimage" -- Robert

No need for that. The Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar of 354 or 355 days. The date of the hajj falls back by 10 or 11 days every year of the Gregorian calendar. It fell on December in 2008. This employee is only 30 years old. If she had waited 10 years or so, the hajj would coincide with her summer vacation. No leave required, paid or unpaid. But then that wouldn't have served her purpose of forcing infidel employers to bow down to Islam.

Damn, now why didn't I think of this. Think I can sue to get a month off when they release the new Star Wars online game in December? "I need to make a pilgrimage to a galaxy far far away."

This is crap - this is like those dingbats who become pharmacists and then refuse to dispense birth control, AZT, Plan B, or prenatal vitamins if it's a prescription from a clinic that also does abortions.

If your job gets in the way of your beliefs, you have to choose.

Also I just decided to convert and go on a hajj. To the beach. For three months. And I want back pay. To the lawyers!!

But then that wouldn't have served her purpose of forcing infidel employers to bow down to Islam.

+1 Muslim activists have proven very adept at exploiting western civil/human rights laws to their advantage, for the purpose of establishing a parallel set of rights solely for muslims. They know how to play to the combination of guilt and vindictiveness that motivates western Progressives.

"It's FORCING the employer to do so that's the issue."

That's true, and I agree. I just wanted to make the point that it can work well for both parties. It just seems that the balance isn't always clear on this site about maternity leave and especially working parents. Although, I am glad there is a site like this that focuses on the real responsibilites of parenthood.

IRA Drth Aggie, she was not asking for paid time off. I think she was asking for unpaid leave as reported by Sarah above. There is a big difference in a paid time off and unpaid time off. When one is in distress, one may have to ask for unpaid leave but paid leave or compensation is another debatable matter.
Recently, I was so in distress after working in a new place for one month as the workplace was not only oppressive and horrible but also becoming too exploitative and suffocating my individuality as a person with dignity. This is in asia where these type of thing is common. IT was also like working two shift for one shift pay. I did not like their asian shabby attitude towards me. I decided it was not for me, as I was unhappy with their attitude toward professional worker such as myself. I quit after feeling in distress. I even work extra hours without getting paid because of my professionalism. I did not asked for compensation though the employer caused me distress and indirectly forced me to leave. Working time is important. Our own time which is unpaid is also important. Even workers have their own resopnsiblities, whether in the workplace or in their personal life.

I think she was asking for unpaid leave as reported by Sarah above. There is a big difference in a paid time off and unpaid time off. -- WLIL at October 20, 2011 2:59 PM

No there is not.

You work at the convenience of your employer regardless of whether it is a public or private sector position.

A private company is responsible to its owners and/or shareholders to make a profit. A public entity is responsible to do what it is required under the law or mandate.

If your job/mandate is a public school, then your mandate is to educate your students. If you have an employee that wants to take a month off at her convenience, regardless of the employers needs -- why should the employer respect it and continue to pay the backside of a LOA?

Before you say that is under the FMLA -- the FMLA is another distortion of the company and employee of the federal government.

Jim P, of course it is up to the employer consideration to refuse or grant an employee unpaid leave or paid leave. And no, I have to disagree with you, employee may have to work hard for her /his employer according to the employer schedule but it should not be always at the convenience of the employer. At the end of the day, a business venture would be more likely to succeed or continuosly prosper if both employee and employee are happy with the working arrangement. And of course if the employee want to take a month off and was refused, the employee should not expect any compensation, unless she or he was abused or illtreated. Anyway, it is the employee right to take time off whenever she/he wants. And as I have said, if the employer is still rigid or cannot be flexible, it is up to the employee to quit or not to quit. The employee is not a slave of anyone. I am shocked that these type of attempted enslavement of employee movement is happenning in USA. I thought slavery is over! The employer don't own the employee. This type of tactic of trying to force an employee to stay during a period where she wanted unpaid leave to go somewhere is quite inhumane.

So Choika, someone who is already a pharmacist shoud be forced to quit because the law changed to allow something that was formerly illegal and the power of the state should be used to crush those who choose to follow their consciences?

Next up, forcing Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions?

It's not like these services are not available elsewhere; but I guess the militants want to force everyone to submit to their dictates. I'm guessing you chose libertarian in Amy's survey. How quickly things change when your ox is the one that is gored.

Even the military allowed conscientious objectors to opt out.

Next up, forcing Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions?

If they take public money then yes, if they accept money from insurance companies that pay for abortions then yes. If you want the choice to pick and choose then fucking choose not to take money from public funds.