Edwin Graning drove a van for the Capital Area Transportation System (CARTS), which serves the public in the communities surrounding Austin, Texas. He is also an ordained minister. He was sent to pick up two women and deliver them to the Planned Parenthood office in Austin. He was “concerned” that the customers were going to Planned Parenthood for an abortion, so he called his supervisor and told her that in good conscience, he could not carry out the job. He was instructed to return to the garage, where he was promptly terminated for this refusal to follow orders.
Graning, supported by lawyers from the American Center for Law and Justice, alleged a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Goodness, quite a bit of irony in that!) He sued his employer for discrimination based upon religious beliefs. In the lawsuit, he sought reinstatement with backpay, payment for his pain, suffering and emotional distress.
Surely, there is no basis in the law for this claim. Surely, Graning is the one who should be sued. Then again, this is the Lone Star state that some would transform into a sovereign nation.
Unsettling Settlement
Lawyers for CART advised them to settle. Blanco County Commissioner Paul Granberg said that the attorneys “advised the board that it would cost a lot more in attorney fees than it would cost to settle.” So they wrote a check to Graning for $21,000. Is there any such thing as principle in law these days? Did CART’s attorneys even consider doing what is right and just?
CART, which did nothing wrong, has changed its hiring procedures, to prevent a recurrence of this ludicrous situation. David Marsh, CART general manager, said officials have begun making it clear when drivers are hired “that we have a job to do and we don’t decide what destinations are.” Boy, that must be a revelation (no pun intended) to people applying for jobs as drivers.
Graning has been amply rewarded for his discriminatory and prejudice-laden act. He had no way of knowing why the customers were going to Planned Parenthood, which offers a wide range of health services, by no means limited to abortion. He was represented in this crackpot lawsuit by attorney Thomas Brandon, Junior, of counsel to Whitaker, Chalk, Swindle & Sawyer. Chalk it up as a Swindle, indeed.
Posts Tagged ‘religion’
Austin City Limits: Payment for Prejudice
Wednesday, April 27th, 2011Annals of Dress Codes: With That Ring, I thee Fire!
Tuesday, September 15th, 2009Hawwah Santiago was a “sandwich artist” at a Subway restaurant in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. She was fired after refusing to remove her nose ring while at work. Visible body piercings (other than earrings) violated the company dress code. Ms. Santiago sued, claiming that the nose ring was a practice of her Nuwaibian religion. The Nuwaibians, based in Eatonton GA, are a black supremacist cult with an elaborate set of beliefs, some of which require an inordinate degree of faith. Here is a very brief sample, courtesy of Wickipedia:
The Illuminati have nurtured a child, Satan’s son, who was born on 6 June 1966 at the Dakota House on 72nd Street in New York to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis of the Rothschild/Kennedy families. The Pope was present at the birth and performed necromantic ceremonies. The child was raised by former U.S. president Richard Nixon and now lives in Belgium, where it is hooked up bodily to a computer called “The Beast 3M” or “3666. [Hmmm. Wonder what brand of virus control is used on the computer.]
There is an underground road connecting New York and London.
The issue here is not the quality of Santiago’s beliefs, but whether these beliefs entitle her to an exemption from company dress policy. The EEOC supported her charge of religious discrimination in the firing and brought suit against the employer. (While a government agency may not be in an ideal position to determine where religion ends and whackiness begins, the EEOC appears to have erred on the side of inclusiveness.)
A jury found that Ms. Santiago did not wear the nose ring because of a “sincerely held religious belief.” Not satisfied, the EEOC sought injunctive relief and punitive damages. But the court dismissed the case. Judge John Antoon II wrote: “The EEOC’s own publications acknowledge that some inquiry into the sincerity of an employee’s belief is appropriate. Otherwise, an employer would have to grant an accommodation any time an employee requested one.”
The leader of the Nuwaubians, Dwight York, currently rules his flock from a jail cell, where he resides under a sentence of more than 135 years for racketeering and child molestation (“suffer the children”?). Oh, ye of little faith! Someday in the not-too-distant future, York will begin his leisurely stroll through the underground road that runs from New York to London. Deep beneath the turbulent waters of the Atlantic Ocean, he will doubtless pause along the way for a delicious sub, lovingly prepared by a sandwich artist with dazzling piercings. When he emerges at last in London – near the lions guarding Nelson’s column, one assumes – the doubters will be vanquished and Nuwaibian claims for religious accommodation will finally be deemed credible.
“My Supervisor’s Dead! Praise the Lord!”
Thursday, April 13th, 2006Many employees wish that their bosses would drop dead, but when it actually happens, is it OK to celebrate in the workplace? If you ascribe the death to an act of God, is your speech protected under your freedom to practice religion?
We read in Suits in the Workplace about just such a case. When the supervisor of a Florida hospital worker suffered a stroke during a routine hernia operation and subsequently died, the employee began telling her coworkers that the stroke was a sign of God’s “wrath” and an indication of Divine judgment. The employee told coworkers that God’s vengeance was served and “victory is mine.” These statements, needless to say, caused a major disruption. Some employees were so upset, they were unable to perform their jobs. The employee was subsequently fired for her conduct. So, naturally, she sued the hospital for religious discrimination under Title VII.
The (Less-Than-Divine) Judgment
The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding that there was no pretext in the employer’s stated basis for termination, namely that the plaintiff was fired for openly celebrating the death of a coworker whom she despised. The fact that there was a religious element to the plaintiff’s celebrations did not protect them or her. The court specifically noted it was not the religious component of plaintiff’s comments that prompted the termination, but rather the inappropriate celebration of the supervisor’s demise. The article did not indicate whether the plaintiff called down thunderbolts on the judge’s head.
Accommodating Religious Belief
Setting aside the above employee’s belief in a deity who functions like Marlon Brando in The Godfather, employers do have to make some accommodations for religious beliefs. Attorney Allan W. Brown from Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott provides the following summary:
: Meet (more than once) with the employee to seek a resolution (and take notes!)
: Accommodate the employee’s observance of religious holidays, whenever possible
: Attempt to find a volunteer to swap shifts with an employee
: Attempt to transfer the employee to another job in the company, if necessary.
Spirituality and Work
Back in 1999, Business Week published an interesting article by Michelle Conlin on spiritual revivals based in the workplace. It’s still a timely summary of the way spirituality in its many forms can impact the workplace. Conlin points out that people are working more and more hours, so the workplace becomes host to activities that used to take place somewhere else.
Most companies and executives are careful to stick to a cross-denominational, hybrid message that’s often referred to as secular spirituality. It focuses on the pluralistic, moral messages common to all the great religions, such as plugging into something larger than yourself, respecting the interconnectedness of all actions and things, and practicing the Golden Rule. But it also puts a premium on free expression and eschews cramming beliefs down other people’s throats.
Religious belief can be a tricky area for management. It’s one thing to tolerate different beliefs. It’s quite another when those beliefs infringe on other employees and disrupt the flow of work. Even if you believe your deity to be a vengeful personal protector, it’s best to keep this comforting thought to yourself.
