Sikh Motorman Claims He's Forced To Wear MTA Logo On His Turban

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Sikh Motorman Claims He's Forced To Wear MTA Logo On His Turban

NEW YORK -- A New York City subway engineer who wears a turban as part of his Sikh religion said he was ordered to put an MTA logo patch on his headwear.

Kevin Harrington said he reluctantly put the logo patch on his turban after his supervisors said he would be demoted to moving trains in a subway yard.

Harrington said he's worn his turban for 25 years while working as a motorman, but in the last year his headwear caught the attention of transit officials. He is involved in a federal civil lawsuit to get the transit authority to allow his turban.

The lawsuit revolves around religious freedom versus workplace uniformity.

A spokesman for New York City Transit said the agency requires its employees to wear uniforms and hats that have been approved.

Harrington said he will continue to wear the MTA logo, because if he's reassigned he would not be able to get home in time to watch his children when they come home from school.

Four Muslims are suing the transit authority because they are made to wear headscarves with the MTA logo.
© 2005 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Why are there so many damn lawsuits? I think asking then to wear an MTA logo on their turbin is more than fair, as the MTA could tell them to stop wearing the turbins altogether. They haven't worn them before? Well, things are different now. What's so wrong with just coming forward and saying that "Thanks to Osama Bin Laden & his henchmen" they have gotten complaints from worried riders who pause a moment when seeing a man in a turbin operating the train...

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

Why are there so many damn lawsuits? I think asking then to wear an MTA logo on their turbin is more than fair, as the MTA could tell them to stop wearing the turbins altogether. They haven't worn them before? Well, things are different now. What's so wrong with just coming forward and saying that "Thanks to Osama Bin Laden & his henchmen" they have gotten complaints from worried riders who pause a moment when seeing a man in a turbin operating the train...

I don't think it's so much seeing a man in a turban as it is seeing a man not in a proper uniform that would take me aback. This is about the public being able to identify civil authorities.

[rkmsuf]

can't he just wear the f-ing little hat like everyone else?

[John Galt]

It is always sad to see people mock others religion and culture. Would it be alright to require christians who where a crucifix to stamp MTA across it? The excuse that this is for "id" purposes is just bunk. They are all wearing a uniform and have an id on their chest. He wore the thing for 25 years. It is ridiculous that he is being targetted and sad that people here support the flimsy justification for denying his religious freedom.

[rkmsuf]

If the job didn't require a uniform I could care less.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It is always sad to see people mock others religion and culture. Would it be alright to require christians who where a crucifix to stamp MTA across it? The excuse that this is for "id" purposes is just bunk. They are all wearing a uniform and have an id on their chest. He wore the thing for 25 years. It is ridiculous that he is being targetted and sad that people here support the flimsy justification for denying his religious freedom.

Agreed.

[Franklinnoble]

What's kind of sad is that he's probably being picked on because most dumb asses can't tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

If the job didn't require a uniform I could care less.

So, no sikhs at McDonald's, the Post Office, working for the MTA, working in a dentist's office, flying an airplane, etc? There is a reason Title VII was passed in the Sixties - and this is case is it.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

What's kind of sad is that he's probably being picked on because most dumb asses can't tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim.

Sikh's have the long pointy moustache...

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by John Galt

So, no sikhs at McDonald's, the Post Office, working for the MTA, working in a dentist's office, flying an airplane, etc? There is a reason Title VII was passed in the Sixties - and this is case is it.

Actually it might be good at McDonalds. The turban will help keep hair out of the Filet O Fishes.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I really want to see a stripper file a similar lawsuit.

[Glengoyne]

I'm surprised at the early sentiment expressed in this thread. To me, the MTA should leave the guy alone. He is wearing the uniform, just with different headwear. Headwear preferred/required by his religion. The MTA logo, seems a reasonable and workable compromise.

It seems like a minor compromise, but one I can also see the city fighting. Say they hired a muslim woman, who all of the sudden decided she wanted to wear a Burkha. Maybe they don't want to set a precedent that would allow such a thing.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

I really want to see a stripper file a similar lawsuit.

This is why their is a legal concept called a BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualification). You can't be Amish and sue for being fired as a bus driver because you refused to drive the bus. Employers are required to make reasonable accomodations for religion, ethnicity, race, gender, etc. Wearing a hat is not a BFOQ. Further, a reasonable accomodation is allowing the id to appear elsewhere than the hat, not stamping it on the turbin.

[sterlingice]

I think he needs more pieces of flair.

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm surprised at the early sentiment expressed in this thread. To me, the MTA should leave the guy alone. He is wearing the uniform, just with different headwear. Headwear preferred/required by his religion. The MTA logo, seems a reasonable and workable compromise.

It seems like a minor compromise, but one I can also see the city fighting. Say they hired a muslim woman, who all of the sudden decided she wanted to wear a Burkha. Maybe they don't want to set a precedent that would allow such a thing.

Correct, the MTA logo seems a reasonable and workable compromise. The Motorman is fighting against this reasonable and workable compromise. He can wear the turban, they're just asking him to put the logo on it. That's why I'm against him; the MTA is trying to work with him, allowing him the turban while still keeping the uniform code. The Motorman does not seem to want to be reasonable.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Correct, the MTA logo seems a reasonable and workable compromise. The Motorman is fighting against this reasonable and workable compromise. He can wear the turban, they're just asking him to put the logo on it. That's why I'm against him; the MTA is trying to work with him, allowing him the turban while still keeping the uniform code. The Motorman does not seem to want to be reasonable.

Not only that, but he can wear the turban without a logo and still have a job! Just not the cushy one where he is dropped off near his residence at the end of his shift. He's then have to commute just like the rest of us... Well, not just like th rest of us. He doesn't have to pay for his commute.

[Crapshoot]

Im still waiting for people to be okay with labelling a cross the same way.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It is always sad to see people mock others religion and culture. Would it be alright to require christians who where a crucifix to stamp MTA across it? The excuse that this is for "id" purposes is just bunk. They are all wearing a uniform and have an id on their chest. He wore the thing for 25 years. It is ridiculous that he is being targetted and sad that people here support the flimsy justification for denying his religious freedom.

If they were wearing it on their head, sure.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Im still waiting for people to be okay with labelling a cross the same way.

"A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks - you think when Jesus comes back, he ever wants to see a f**king cross? Kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on, you know?"
--Bill Hicks

[Franklinnoble]

Most born-again Christians don't care much for relics, idols, and symbolism, so this wouldn't be an issue. I don't (and won't ever) wear a cross as part of my daily wardrobe.

[Karlifornia]

Did anyone else notice the weird part of the story? There is actually a Sikh named Kevin Harrington.

[larrymcg421]

I think the demotion would only be a reasonable accomodation if A) there was no other reasonable accomodation available and B) they paid him the same amount.

The most telling thing here is that he's worked there for 25 years. So apparently he has been able to do his job well enough to keep it for 2 and a half decades. There are many other ways for them to make it obvious he is a transit worker. If the best thing they can come up with is putting a logo on his turban, then they're not even trying to accomodate the guy.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If the best thing they can come up with is putting a logo on his turban, then they're not even trying to accomodate the guy.

It is lame, but they were just trying to come up with a way to pacify the workers who want to wear turbins instead of just flat out saying no to the turbins. This is what happens when you try to bend over backwards for people.

What they should do is make it standard MTA uniform that all transit workers be required to wear turbins so that we riders are not potentially bothered by the 5 that want to wear them. Then you can have a few thousand guys pissed that they now have these five to than for making them wear turbins. I think these five would reconsider their position with a couple hundred pissed off transit workers inquiring why they now have to wear a turbin!

Seriously, the whole thing is as stupid as the Florida woman who wanted to take her drivers license pic wearing a damn burka.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

Why are there so many damn lawsuits? I think asking then to wear an MTA logo on their turbin is more than fair, as the MTA could tell them to stop wearing the turbins altogether. They haven't worn them before? Well, things are different now. What's so wrong with just coming forward and saying that "Thanks to Osama Bin Laden & his henchmen" they have gotten complaints from worried riders who pause a moment when seeing a man in a turbin operating the train...

Either we have religious freedom in this country or not. I don't think 9/11 should change that. If we allow our freedoms to be bastardized because of a terrorist attack, then we're telling the terrorists how they can affect our lifestyle. I have a right to wear a cross to work and no act of terror is gonna change that.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Either we have religious freedom in this country or not. I don't think 9/11 should change that. If we allow our freedoms to be bastardized because of a terrorist attack, then we're telling the terrorists how they can affect our lifestyle. I have a right to wear a cross to work and no act of terror is gonna change that.

Does this extend to the guys in prison that want to be able to practice Voodooism and sacrifice chickens? There has to be a line somewhere about what reasonable religious practices are. Yes, I understand that mine is an extreme example and we're talking about the minor practice of what hat you wear, but the point is there can't be complete "religious" freedom unless you define what practices fall under the "religion" umbrella.

A question meant with utter sincerity: why does the Sikh religion require specific headgear? Why is that a religious question? I understand the Muslim practice of women wearing covering clothing, but I'm not sure what the importance of the turban is. I'd really like to be educated about why this falls under religious grounds vs. cultural tradition grounds. Edit: Reading one of the links below, I see what much of the symbolism is regarding the turban and why it's considered important. But again, no one is interfering with the right to actually wear the turban, so let's focus on the issue of the patch.

On this particular situation, I don't see it as a religious freedom issue. He took a job that had a uniform code, got away with ignoring it for 25 years, 9/11 happened and civil authorities had to get more picky about appearances, but are still trying to accomodate him, and he's not happy with the accomodation. He has every right to find a different job that does not have a dress code, or he can work with his employer to find a compromise that satisfies everyone. No one is preventing him from following his religious beliefs, and the employer is trying to satisfy both him and their job requirements based on them being a public service company in a critical sector (transportation is critical to our economy). And he has the option to find a job that does not care about what headgear is worn.

Is there a particular reason that adding the patch violates the religious beliefs? Again, I don't know what the Sikh religious rules are regarding the turban.

I did do some searching and turned up the following:

An article on the importance of the turban to Sikhs: http://www.sikhnet.com/s/TurbanHeritage

Picture of a key Sikh figure wearing a badge on the turban: http://www.sikhcybermuseum.org/People/randhirsingh.htm

As both of these discuss putting things on the turban, what are the rules regarding this? Are the badges supposed to be strictly religious symbols? Why is this particular badge in this particular story a problem?

The only info given so far is that "the turban is of critical importance to Sikhs, and he feels that adding the patch violates these beliefs". Why does the patch violate those beliefs? Answering that question may go a long way towards settling my mind on this.

[larrymcg421]

I think the logo is extremely offensive. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to try and put some kind of patch or logo over a cross I was wearing.

To me, the real question is are they making a reasonable accomodation. The MTA's issue seems to be can someone identify this man as a transit worker. Is a logo on the turban the only way to do that? I don't think so. Therefore, I think other accomodations can and should be made.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think the logo is extremely offensive. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to try and put some kind of patch or logo over a cross I was wearing.

You just said "I think". I'm curious to find out if there are any specific restrictions or rules on this, as I found at least two indications that some items ARE allowed to be placed on the turban. If there are specific Sikh prohibitions or rules about what can be placed on the turban and why, I might be inclined to change my stance on this matter. I just haven't been able to find these, just solid references on why the turban itself is considered so important (and again, the MTA is not requiring him to drop the turban at all).

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

To me, the real question is are they making a reasonable accomodation. The MTA's issue seems to be can someone identify this man as a transit worker. Is a logo on the turban the only way to do that? I don't think so. Therefore, I think other accomodations can and should be made.

He is a motorman, correct? Which means much of his time is spent sitting down in the front of the train, correct? Which means that what most people see is his head, correct? More specifically, the back of his head. That's where I think the uniform headgear comes in as being important to identify someone in this particular job as MTA. And apparently there are other jobs with the MTA where the uniform headgear is not an issue (article states he could switch jobs within the MTA), which backs this up. He just wants this particular job, not one of the others. That's where I think he may be being unreasonable; he's refusing to take a different job within the same group that would allow him this freedom, and he's refusing what appears on the surface to be a reasonable compromise to keep the same current job. I would like to see more information on why this is not a reasonable compromise, but again this has to be kept in the context of the other jobs available at the same employer that have less stringent headgear requirements.

I'm also wondering how much of this may have to do with emergency procedures in the MTA. I could easily see a need, for example, for motormen in other subway cars to be able to identify who is driving passing cars, and report in if it looks suspicious (not an MTA employee). Again, they'll mostly see the upper part of the body, mostly head. But of course, much like the Sikh side of this story (why the logo is a problem), there is very little information on why the MTA thinks the headgear is so important. We're just speculating. More information would definitely be welcome here from both sides.

And I don't buy the crucifix example. Many Christians choose to wear it, it's not required wearing at all, and it's very easy to hide under clothing. It would be very difficult for you to come up with a comparable example simply because most (all?) Christian religions have NO specific requirements about what you can and cannot wear that would interfere with ANY uniform requirements. And about the only Christian prohibition that affects working environments (aside from morality issues surrounding certain occupations) is "keep holy the Sabbath" which is often interpreted to mean "don't work on Sundays", but this has been pretty much blown away over the last few decades.

So right now, I'd like to see the Sikh reasoning as to why this logo is an unreasonable compromise. What are the rules as to what is allowed / not allowed on the turban? Are there specific emblems reserved for specific roles within the Sikh religion? And it would help to get more information from the MTA on why the headgear is so important to this particular job. Only then can we truly draw our own conclusions about which side is being unreasonable here.

Of course, there is the third possibility: there may simply be equally important goals from both side. Public safety from the MTA (who has to ensure proper functioning of the subway and that an unauthorized person is not driving the cars), and very important religious rules regarding what may be worn on the head. I can EASILY see those two points not being resolvable, in which case the MTA has a leg up here: they're more than willing to give him a different job where the conflict does not exist. It would be nice to know for certain that this does not involve a paycut, etc. The job may not be convenient for him, but frankly millions of people in this country work inconvenient jobs to try and make ends meet.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Since some people keep trying to insert a cross into the discussion, there's at least one instance that comes to mind (after some deliberation) that would fall under the general category of Christian-religious-symbol-and-workplace-uniform-requirements -- the wearing of a cross by a machine operator that is prohibited to wear jewelry. AFAIK, when cases like this come up occasionally, as long as the restriction is deemed reasonable then it's generally "follow the rules or find another position".

[21C]

Originally Posted by RadioFriendlyUnitShifter

Did anyone else notice the weird part of the story? There is actually a Sikh named Kevin Harrington.

Actually I thought that too especially after I saw the story in my paper - and the lawyer's name was Amardeep Singh. I thought they may have transposed the names.

After a quick google, in turns out that Harrington adopted the Sikh religion and has the Sikh name of Sathari Singh although Harrington is still his legal name.