 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
how can a person be fired for creating a hostile atmosphere to gays when he is stating his religious views? (Insubordination asside.) Religion, as apposed to sexual orientation, is "expressly" protected. |
Because a 'hostile environment' for working is different from a hostile environment cause of action under Title VII. By putting up the verses, the employee may be causing a hostile environment, and IF it continues, the gay employee may have a case not only against the displayer, but ALSO THE EMPLOYER! It's the same reason that playboy calenders aren't allowed. Because they create a hostile workplace for women, even if they wouldn't be able to win on it in court as soon as it goes up.
Let me give you an example, if an employee grabs a female co-worker's butt once and does nothing else, that wouldn't be enough to win on sexual harassment claim. However, a company can fire the person for creating a hostile work environment (all women won't work with that guy anymore because of it) and that's ok.
They aren't firing him for his religion. They are firing him because they asked him to get rid of the quotes because co-workers had problems with it, and he refused.
They can fire you if you reduce productivity by your beliefs. |
All this assumes that gays are a protected class, unless "hostile enviroment" causes of action do not require a protected class.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Alright, take gays out of this. What you are saying is that if anyone publically expresses his religious view at work he can be fired. |
It depends on how it's done. For example, on the flor below me, on of the call takers has a Bible open on his desk. Every time I walk past it, I see it. Now suppose a Hare Krishna was hired, and immediately began trying to convert me, even after I'd said, "leave me alone." If management did nothing, I could sue for allowing this guy to create a hostile workplace. So they would try and reign this guy in. If he wouldn't be reined, he'd be fired.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It depends on how it's done. For example, on the flor below me, on of the call takers has a Bible open on his desk. Every time I walk past it, I see it. Now suppose a Hare Krishna was hired, and immediately began trying to convert me, even after I'd said, "leave me alone." If management did nothing, I could sue for allowing this guy to create a hostile workplace. So they would try and reign this guy in. If he wouldn't be reined, he'd be fired. |
I agree with this Che.
But, would you fire the man with the Bible?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
HP didn't stop him from believing or practicing his religion, they stopped him from posting inflammatory material on their property. Employers aren't obligated to tolerate expression of one's beliefs, they simply can't discriminate against people for believing something. Again, HP didn't care that he was a Christian--they cared that he refused to follow company policy when it came to posting inappropriate material and that he refused to obey his supervisors in this regard. |
But Boris, The Ninth Circuit expressly recogonized the right of employees to express their religious views in opposition to company policy when it said,
"In Tucker v. California Dep’t of Educ., 97 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 1996),we expressed concern that a state agency’s prohibition on religious posting in the workplace constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment because it “silenc[ed] religious perspectives on controversial subjects.” We illustrated these concerns by explaining the prohibition’s potential impact on a hypothetical sign “stating that ‘gay marriage is a sin,’ and quoting passages from the Bible to support that proposition.”
Id. at 1216. Hewlett-Packard, however, is a private employer rather than a state agency. Thus, we do not need to reach the First Amendment concerns raised in Tucker. We do note, however, that an employee’s opposition to a policy of his employer or his advocacy regarding a controversial public issue invokes different considerations than his expressive activity intended to demean or degrade co-workers."
It just went on to say that the employee's action here exceeded the scope of his right when he created a hostile atmosphere against fellow employees.
The question is, then, whether the restriction on religion was justified by a contervailing legal right. The implication of the holding is that gays are indeed a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2004 03:02
|
|