Thanks very much, Marie. Is any or all of this documented somewhere, in addition to the state court of appeals case?
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Marie A. Failinger < mfailin...@gw.hamline.edu> wrote: > Just to add to my previous post in response to Marty's questions: > > 1. Not all of the Muslim cabbies felt religiously obliged to refuse to > carry passengers with open displays of al to the cohol (or dogs) as I > remember. However, there was a fatwa issued by a local Muslim organization > saying that they shouldn't do it. Since a fatwa is a legal opinion, it > certainly provides legal authority for the cabbies' insistence that they > shouldn't do it; it wasn't simply their personal view per se. > > 2. Airport regulation 102 now provides that taxi drivers cannot refuse to > take a passenger unless he refuses to pay, is seriously intoxicated or is a > physical threat. One provision of the section also prohibits drivers from > refusing service based on race, gender, religion, national origin, > ethnicity, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, or age, or > having a service dog. > > 3. The cabbies' appeal for an injunction was denied by the trial court > and upheld by Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2008 on the basis that they had > an adequate remedy at law--any license denial could be appealed and the > cabbie could keep his license in the meantime. Dolal v. Metropolitan > Airports Com'n, 2008 WL 4133517 > > http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/09/muslim_cabs_court/ > > I couldn't find much recently about the effect on Muslims serving the > airport except this related news, in January, a major airport taxi company > here fired Somali drivers who protested the refusal of the company to sit > down and negotiate their working conditions > http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2012/01/report_somali_cabbies_learn_pr.shtml > > > Marie A. Failinger > > Professor of Law > Editor, Journal of Law and Religion > Hamline University School of Law > 1536 Hewitt Avenue > Saint Paul, MN 55104 U.S.A. > 651-523-2124 (work phone) > 651-523-2236 (work fax) > mfailin...@hamline.edu (email) > > > >>> Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> 3/7/2012 5:35 AM >>> > > Can anyone point me to a good, thorough account of what happened in > Minneapolis, including (i) the explanations, if any, the cabbies offered > for why the lack of the exemption burdened their religious exercise (did it > mean they were unable to accept work as other forms of common carriers, > such as pilots, UPS/FedEx delivery employees, bus drivers, etc.?); (ii) how > the controversy was resolved as a matter of law; and (iii) what became of > the Muslim drivers after the exemption was revoked. > > Thanks in advance. > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
