Good news, fellow citizens! Metro has agreed to pay a ridiculously high settlement for that guy who insisted on wearing a hat and beard on duty. From the RJ: The Metropolitan Police Committee on Fiscal Affairs is scheduled to approve a $350,000 payment next week for Detective Steve Riback, an observant Orthodox Jew who claimed he was experiencing religious discrimination on the job.Fox 5 reported a few more details about the settlement, stating that Riback would be able to keep wearing "a neatly trimmed beard no longer than one-quarter inch and a baseball hat without a logo or with the department's logo."
Three hundred fifty G's and he gets to keep the beard!? Well played, counsel. We hope the defense was able to milk Metro for sufficient billables before advising them to cave to those terms. It seems to us that had a simple letter of apology been written at the outset, Nevada taxpayers may not have been forced to pay off Mr. Riback's mortgage for him. But where's the fun in that?
Wow...nice post. All religious discrimination should be handled with a simple letter of apology and nothing more....I'm sure that will act as a great deterrent
ReplyDeleteOh, cry me a river! So apparently, this guy was unaware of the grooming and dress requirements when he joined Metro? I agree with WWL that this is a ridiculous settlement. It's reverse discrimination if anything. Do you suppose that the rest of Metro's officers are now going to be able to wear beards and ballcaps?
ReplyDeleteOh, cry me a river?
ReplyDeleteIt's ok that Metro cannot hire a segment of the population simply because of their beards?
Several local and federal agencies have no problem with hiring Muslims, Hasidic Jews and Sikhs despite their beard requirements. Hell, Metro allowed a uniform waiver for Christians!!!
No, this guy is totally right and should be rewarded his just due. The fact that he found his flavor of God should not cost him his employment.
Spare me the mental midgetry.
Intellectual Giant -
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not whether Metro will hire people with beards, the issue is that the specific area in which he chose to work had a dress code that all officers agreed to adhere to, one that he knew about when signing up.
If your religion requires you to wear a burka all the time, you probably shouldn't choose to be a cocktail waitress.
I think the point of the post may have been to point out that the matter could have been settled early if Metro had just admitted that it was in the wrong, not that religious discrimination is ok.
ReplyDelete11:39 PM --
ReplyDeleteSo in your mind, VMI should not allow female students? After all, they weren’t allowed for years, everyone knows it was a men’s only school and any female applicant should know they're excluded, right?
The fact is, "rules is rules" is a completely illogical argument when applied to religious and sexual discrimination, particularly by a taxpayer-backed, public entity.
@3:40
ReplyDeleteYes. Believe it or not, there are those of us who believe that VMI was wrongly decided (see Scalia's dissent in said opinion).
Thanks for sharing,,,,,,,,,,,,
ReplyDelete___________________
Smarry
For 3 Months Enjoy Free 28 Premium Movie Channels