“The EEOC argued that the company could have easily reassigned the drivers but did not and sued it for religious discrimination.” If that is true, then the company was indeed in the wrong, although not necessarily to the tune of $240,000. More often, the Muslims who bring these kinds of suits have refused reassignment to positions that would allow them to practice their religion without hindrance — as in the notorious case of Imane Boudlal, who insisted on wearing her hijab while working at Disney, and sued after refusing multiple offers from Disney to place her in positions where her hijab would not violate their longstanding dress code.

These cases are generally attempts to compel American businesses to change the way they operate in order to accommodate Muslim practices. The EEOC willingly aids them: “EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices.” But this case doesn’t support equal treatment in the workplace. It establishes Muslim truckers as having a special right to choose what they transport and what they do not — a privilege the other truckers do not having. And gaining special rights for Muslims, above and beyond what non-Muslims enjoy and in accord with the elevated status of Muslims over non-Muslims in Islamic law, is what these cases are really all about.

“EEOC wins discrimination case for Muslims fired for not delivering beer,” by Sean Higgins,Washington Examiner, October 22, 2015 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission won $240,000 in damages for two Muslim truck drivers after it sued their former employer for religious discrimination for firing the drivers for refusing to make beer deliveries.

The EEOC said that Star Transport Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated their religious rights by refusing to accommodate their objections to delivering alcoholic beverages.                          source