How far does the obligation extend under employment discrimination laws to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs? A release yesterday by Liberty Counsel publicizing a case in Panama City, Florida raises the issue. Officials at Counts Oakes Resort Properties, a property management company, instructed employees to answer phones this month with the greeting "Happy Holidays." Tonia Thomas objected on the ground that her religious beliefs prevented her from contributing to the secularization of Christmas. She requested an accommodation to permit her to either say "Merry Christmas" or continue answering phones in the same way as they are answered all year. Her employer refused and ultimately fired her for insubordination. Thomas has filed a complaint with the EEOC.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
20 comments:
"Tonia Thomas objected on the ground that her religious beliefs prevented her from contributing to the secularization of Christmas."
*sigh*
How is wishing a happy holidays contributing to the secularization of Christmas? Is the drive for proselytization so strong in Christianity that you're not allowed to acknowledge that other holidays even exist?
Can't imagine that Tonia has a prayer for relief. The employer had has a legitimate reason for asking its employees to answer the phones "Happy Holidays," namely to promote good will among all of its customers.
And, as CrypticLife pointed out, I doubt that EEOC will find that there is a religious basis that prevents Tonia from saying Happy Holidays -- as its neutral.
She was insubordinate. She received her just rewards.
The best hope for justice is the public relations nightmare for the company once this becomes public.
I would personally never support a business that fired an employee for this reason.
Justice? Someone refuses to follow the company script, which their contract says they have to, usually, based on a total incomprehension of both the history of Christmas, the history of "Happy Holidays", the pagan origins of the former, and due purely to a religious conviction that some loud mouth idiots are right, and some people want to undermine Christian Christmas.
Hint:
"In 1659, just a few decades after they had arrived in the New World, the Puritans banned the celebration of Christmas (as well as gambling and congregation for non-religious purposes). The holiday reminded them of Old World customs from England (the nation from which they’d fled to escape religious persecution). In fact, they refused to consider December 25th a holy day at all - the Catholic Church had selected the date as the day to celebrate Christ’s birthday because it coincided with an ancient, popular pagan festival. Anybody in Boston caught singing, drinking, playing games, or having a feast on Christmas was fined five shillings. The bans were later revoked, but it wouldn’t be the last time a moral outcry deprived Bostonians of diversions that seem relatively harmless today."
England did the same at some point. It wasn't an official state holiday until 1870. So, that's 211 years between when the first settlers banned the holiday and refused to recognize it on "religious" grounds, and when the US "government" decided that enough people tended to celebrate it anyway to make it a secular federal holiday.
The only injustice here is that every damn year, when I want to celebrate Christmas with family, I have to listen to braying idiots that think that tacking Jesus' death onto a pagan religious holiday, and ignoring their own Bible's admonishments against things like, for example, Christmas trees, gives them the right to call anyone that says "Happy Holidays" a godless liberal, and proclaim that there is a vast conspiracy to "undermine" its Christian origins (pure bullshit, it barely has any), by the same supposed godless liberals, who they claim all "hate it".
Makes you want to burn a fracking Christmas tree on their front lawn some times, but... unlike religious kooks, that used to do that with crosses, us "godless liberals" understand that making threats, acts of terrorism, and things like lies and slander are "wrong", because they undermines society and cause unneeded division. Odd how the other side thinks instead that lying, slandering, stealing non-Christian signs, protesting (or more accurately, trying to ban) speech that isn't "nice" to Christians, and refusing to do what we are forced to do 24/7, 365 days a year, and put up with opinions we find idiotic, insane, or outright offensive, is all perfectly OK, since its all in "defense" of the poor persecuted 2,700,000 people in the US that are Christian, by 300,000 people that aren't...
Ok, sure, anon, this is a relatively minor and stupid thing, from a stupid person, who thinks their personal indignation, at being told to recognize that there are other holidays this month, gives her the right to object to company policy. And, in a fair world, maybe it should, even though "her" choice probably offends other people too. But, if I objected to half the shit my company requires, for similar reasons, I would be out of a job as well. Life isn't fair, and if it was, it would be **more** unjust for only one group to have all the fairness, and everyone else to be told to "suck it up and just do what you are told". Oh wait... That is the way it is already in the US in places already, its called "The Bible Belt".
This woman was clearly insubordinant and deserved what she got. The company on the other hand is clearly insensitive to the fact that the vast majority of Americans celebrate Christmas and intentionally dodging acknowlegement of that cultural fact will offend many.
Greeting people with Merry Christmas does not offend the civilized among us of other faiths or none. Nor does a greeting of Happy Hanukkah offend civilized Christians.
This company will hopefully discover that the vast majority of it's customers will move their business to another company, less willing to dismiss an enormous cultural icon in the spirit of spineless PC'ness.
Do they have the right? Absolutely. They also have the right to go bankrupt because they pissed off all of their customers and only the 12 Atheists in Florida still do business with them.
There is no reason that the person couldn't have uaed the usual greeting. She was willing to compromise. Workers aren't slaves although some bosses think so. The narrow (bigoted?) mind was on the part of her bosses.
The widespread incidences of bosses and companies ditching the word Christmas in so many instances and venues would convince any unbigoted rational person that there is an assault on the beliefs of the 80-90% of Americans who celebrate the traditional Christmas.
I really don't get how wishing people Happy Holidays is any kind of assault on Christmas at all.
Had the company wanted all of its employees to answer the phone with "Happy Kwanzaa!" it wouldn't have been an attack of Christmas.
Or, are Christians saying everyone else should take "Merry Christmas!" as a personal attack if they don't celebrate Christmas? Most atheists don't. Richard Dawkins goes out singing Christmas carols, as does a good portion of the ACLU. PZ Myers of Pharyngula jokes about squidmas, but seems more annoyed by the theistic assumption that there is some kind of goal to obliterate Christmas than with Christmas itself.
80% of Americans are also white. That doesn't mean vilifying white supremacist groups are somehow attacking whites.
"Greeting people with Merry Christmas does not offend the civilized among us of other faiths or none. Nor does a greeting of Happy Hanukkah offend civilized Christians. "
Ah, but somehow "Happy Holidays" is enormously offensive to Christians and must be taken as an attack?
To not recognize that when huge numbers of bosses and corporations send out marching orders to their employees telling them that they shall not use the word Christmas or be fired is willful blindness. And this frequently from greedy merchants who in many cases would go bankrupt if it weren't for their customers buying CHRISTMAS gifts (Indeed, how many people in everday language say they are buying holiday gifts.) The problem is not the word "Holidays" but its use as the vehicle for exterminating the word "Christmas."
Have those of you who think that saying "Happy Holidays" is an assault on Christmas considered that not only do quite a few people celebrate Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, or some other holiday, but that the season contains other holidays, such as New Year's Day and Epiphany? One reason for wishing people "Happy Holidays" is to cover the whole holiday season.
Just to be a contrarian, Title VII does impose a duty to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs--and the observances and practices according therewith-- provided they don't impose an undue hardship on the employer. Of course, there are a number of defenses available to the employer in this case, namely:
a) Employee's conduct was neither "observance" nor "practice." Assuming employee's faith did affirmatively require some defense against the "secularization" of Christmas, this belief system never mandates refraining from using "happy holidays." I.e., employee's faith gives her no means to obtain her goal, thus making anything employee designates this means her religious "practice." Cf. a duty to evangelize, which imposes a clear means (proselytizing) to effect that goal.
b) The nature of employer's business requires a strict adherence to telephone protocol, due to the importance of telephone communications in conducting business. Deviations from this protocol--either directly or by setting a precedent--thus work an undue hardship on said employer.
c) There is no discrimination, as the Title VII disparate treatment alleged was neither a) motivated by animus against the employee's religion, nor b) implicative of any such motivation. (It resulted from a failure to abide by a duty not calculated to be discriminatory; indeed, it was a duty calculated to be inclusive.)
As strong as these defenses seem to me (especially c), one must still keep in mind how relatively insignificant the accommodation requested seems, and how discovery might uncover evidence to put even defense c in doubt.
Happy Festivus,
Sergei Zhulik
"Happy Holidays" is coded PC. All PC is case. There should be zero tolerance for any PC, its case, and its bullying lawyers. All business and school collaborators with PC should undergo litigation.
What about that guy "PC" on the Apple commercials. Should he be litigated? I think my wife had a tubal litigation once.
I bet if you are a business school collaborator that is the worst. My old Chevy had a 4 barrel collaborator. It hauled-ass.
Happy Holidays.
"'Happy Holidays' is coded PC. All PC is case."
I'd ask you to explain that and translate it into ordinary English, but I'm afraid you'll do it and I'll get lost again in one of your disjointed ramblings.
But just for your edification: "Holiday" is an expression that stems from the 14th century, and it has two meanings -- a religious festival (holy day) and a day of recreation (vacation).
It's also quite expedient, when you serve the entire population regardless of religion and culture, that you try to be as inclusive as possible. When mind-reading becomes common, you can differentiate among those who celebrate Christmas, Kwaanzaa, Yule, Hanukah, Festivus, Winterfest, Saturnalia, and the myriad of other cultural festivals at this time of year.
Christmas is only one of the festivals celebrated here. How insecure do you have to be to insist that it's the only one that can be acknowledged?
I defer to no one in the extremism of my atheism. However, I am an Intelligent Atheist. That differs from the cult indoctrinated, lawyer, Dumbass Atheist, populating this blog.
I am the one that spotted the supernatural nature of core legal doctrines. I am the one that spotted the secret cult indoctrination methods of 1L. No one here is as extreme as me, in their atheism, and empiricism. The atheists here are naive, Dumbass cult indoctrination victims, as children might be.
The Intelligent Atheist understands and values the following;
1) the universality of religion in all cultures, and its likely genetic basis and evolutionary advantage, as a coping mechanism under stress;
2) religion helps people with IQ's under 120 understand why they should care for their families, go to work, and obey rules that make life livable;
3) I understand the comfort, charity, and solidarity it brings to communities under stress, and not just individuals.
I take no offense when wished "Merry Christmas," and easily reply, "Merry Christmas," without the slightest feeling of hypocrisy. That is just good manners.
Here is what offends me deeply. Lawyers have intimidated businesses, schools, and all other productive parties, with plundering, pretextual litigation, enabled by the vile, cult enforcer criminals on the bench. Now, employers are afraid, and impose a sicko PC speech code on an employee, when no business has been lost, nor has any customer complained. The vile cult criminal on the bench has the people micro-managed and oppressed down to the greeting phrase.
There should be zero tolerance for PC. Because the cult criminal on the bench has rigged the legal system airtight, nothing remains but community self-help. These are vile internal traitors. No mercy should be shown them. They should be shunned. Then they should be driven out of all civilized enclaves. I believe this lawsuit will fail because judges are totally biased. Only removal of all lawyers from all benches can restore any justice or sanity to the court.
The Christian believes, and says, this is my faith, God can read minds, predict and change the future. The vile internal traitor cult criminal believes man should. He then uses this false, supernatural power as a pretext to take money away from productive parties, to give to land pirates and sleazy plaintiffs.
Here, one of yours, a Dumbass, agrees. Chill out about "Merry Christmas."
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_12_21-2008_12_27.shtml#1230062870
"Dumbass" is not an epithet here. It is a lawyer term of art I invented. It means, someone with an IQ of 300 who has been mentally crippled by legal education.
As a lawyer specializing in religious freedom, I can't take seriously this woman's claim that her religious beliefs do not allow her to say "Happy Holidays." That may not be her preference, but her claim of persecution of Christians denigrates genuine religious freedom violations. By issuing a press release and jumping to this woman's defense, Liberty Counsel has shown, once again, that it is not a religious-freedom organization, but an advancement-of-all-things Christian organization. Nothing wrong with that, just don't pretend to be something you're not.
Anon 11:43: You are one of the enforcers of PC, intimidator of employers, schools, and all productive parties. I would be interested in hearing more about the cases you are pursuing. When I say, all PC is case, I am referring to your work. You are in this business because judges have indulged and enabled you pretextual attacks on our American Way of Life. They are enriching and empowering the criminal cult enterprise that is the lawyer profession. No alternative source of authority is safe from their attacks on behalf of central government, a subsidiary of the lawyer profession.
I do not blame you for your greed and bias. I blame the judges. They are the internal enemy. They must be hunted down by federal marshals, tried, with the sole evidence the texts of their decisions, and no collateral corruption or lawyer gotcha. Those decisions are their crimes. Then they hang for insurrection against the Constitution.
Question: Do you believe the minds of drunken criminals can be read, perhaps months after the crime? The future of rare accidents can be forecast? Do you believe that standards of conduct should be set by a fictional character to make them objective? Do you believe that 12 strangers can detect the truth from the testimony of witnesses testifying to events months before? Were you ever told the real meaning of the word, reasonable, namely, in accordance with the New Testament?
These are central doctrines of the judge. Do you think they are a little supernatural?
You will destroy a school for saying a prayer for one minute before a football game with litigation cost for bogus, false claims.
Yet, you do nothing about the outrage of the supernatural central doctrines of the lawyer. And each is from a church. If you read the catechism about mortal sin, you will run into words such as intent, elements, evidence. I have no criticism of church, nor of the lawyers of 1250 AD. I criticize the judges of 2008 practicing the church based law of 1250 AD, unchanged, in violation of the Establishment Clause of our secular nation.
Do you think you are a little bit of a hypocrite, despite your IQ of 300? The sole explanation for you blindness and collaboration with law school religious indoctrination into these supernatural doctrines is the rent seeking theory.
One of the tactics that I propose for all defendants attacked by cult criminals is to make it totally personal. Parse every utterance and act of the plaintiff cult criminal. Report every single out of place word to the judge, demanding a mistrial and cost from the personal assets. Then file complaints with the Disciplinary Counsel. Try to speak before every group to which the cult criminal belongs and to orchestrate the shunning of the criminal. Always, seek the personal destruction of the internal traitor. That is something no defense lawyer will do. You need another lawyer to bully the defense lawyer to fully carry out duties of the defense lawyer enumerated in the Rules of Conduct and of Evidence.
If the judge refuses to sanction the plaintiff cult criminal, do the same to the judge, after the case. The judge will order people with guns to put you in jail if you try it during the trial. Those guns are the sole validation of the garbage law these cult criminals practice. It is anti-scientific, Medieval, false, supernatural garbage, unlawful in our secular nation.
Judges should come to fear the innocent victims of lawyer pretextual PC cases.
If the cult criminal does not learn, there is plenty of moral and intellectual justification for community self help against the low life on the bench. They are lower than convicted felons. They seek to destroy our nation, felons do not.
If they were replaced by random members of the jury pool or even be drunken, vomiting, homeless, alcohol dementia victims, there would be an immediate upgrade in both clarity and in logic of appellate decisions.
This rejoinder is from a member of the lawyer hierarchy.
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_12_21-2008_12_27.shtml#1230395044
You gonna go away soon?
Sure, Gorgon.
When will the criminal cult enterprise that is the lawyer profession stop seeking the destruction of our lawyer besieged nation? When will the supernatural central doctrines of this vile, self-dealing, self-immunizing, rent seeking cult get removed from every law, and every page of every Hornbook?
When will a strong, Lincoln class executive have federal marshals hunt down the hierarchy of these internal traitors with dogs, put them on trial, and hang them for insurrection against the Article I Section 1 and the Establishment Clause?
Post a Comment