Posted on 02/04/2015 12:20:36 PM PST by wagglebee
DETROIT, MI, February 4, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A former contractor with Ford Motor Company has sued, saying the auto giant and contracting firm RGBSI violated his civil rights when he was fired for his religious opposition to same-sex "marriage."
In a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and provided to LifeSiteNews, Thomas Banks said that he was fired after commenting on Ford's policy related to same-sex relationships. According to Banks, Ford invited employees to comment on the policy, which Banks -- who was an employee of RGBSI at the time -- did.
Within two weeks, Banks had met with a Human Resources employee of Ford and been fired by RGBSI. His complaint, which was filed on January 28, 2015, is being represented by the Christian-oriented Liberty Institute.
According to the complaint details, Banks' wrote his comment on Ford’s policy that the company “should be thoroughly ashamed.”
“Endorsing and promoting sodomy is of benefit to no one,” he continued. “This topic is disruptive to the workplace and is an assault on Christians and morality, as well as antithetical to our design and our survival. Immoral sexual conduct should not be a topic for an automotive manufacturer to endorse or promote. And yes-this is historic-but not in a good way. Never in the history of mankind has a culture survived that promotes sodomy. Heterosexual behavior creates life-homosexual behavior leads to death."
According to an e-mail from a RGBSI employee who formally relieved Banks of his job, Ford's Human Resources representative said that Banks' comment violated the Ford anti-harassment policy related to sexual orientation. That policy outlines behaviors that are considered harassing, including but not limited to "jokes or stories that are derogatory toward someone's membership" in a specific group, as well as "degrading comments" or "demeaning or criticizing an individual because of her/his membership in one of these groups..."
Banks was also told in an e-mail that he was "in violation of the RGBSI harassment policy," which says that "harassment of any other protected status...is also prohibited." As part of his complaint, Banks noted that "a careful reading of RGBSI's own policy confirms that its own policies do not even prohibit what it claims is the policy basis for its decision. RGBSI only has a ‘sexual orientation’ policy that applies in New York City, New York. No such policy exists in Michigan, or for Michigan employees."
"It is undisputed that I performed my work, live in, and sent my e-mail while in Michigan. Thus, RGBSI terminated me for stated reasons that have no basis in RGBSI policy," write Banks.
An examination of the e-mails provided to LifeSiteNews about Banks' claims related to RGBSI policies verified the fired employee's statement.
According to Liberty Institute Council Cleve Doty, who represents Banks, both Ford and RGBSI are included in the complaint because "it was Ford that initiated the meeting with Thomas Banks, and said that his comment may have violated company non-discrimination policies."
"He was later informed by the contracting company that he was being released by Ford," said Doty. "[RGBSI] could have kept Mr. Banks on staff, but chose instead to say he violated their non-discrimination policies, and fired him."
"This one is particularly troubling because the guy works for three years, with a clean record, but then gets fired for making one comment in an area asking for comments about company policy -- and he stated his religious beliefs," explained Doty. "Therefore, he was fired for his religious beliefs, which is in violation of federal civil rights law and the U.S. Constitution."
It is not known how quickly the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will respond to Banks' complaint. The Commission's standards on what qualifies as religious discrimination are spelled in detail here, and "religious discrimination" is defined as something that "involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs."
It’s clear to me the person reading his response was a homo or homo friendly.
Must’ve been a fairy reading his questionnaire.
...and they ARE damned.
They asked his opinion. He gave it. If they didn’t like it all they had to do was delete it.
If they were really worried about it they could have called him in to tell him he was out of step with the new Ford Company.
Lots of things they could have done if they didn’t like the opinion they asked for.
Firing him for an opinion they solicited, on a moral and religious issue, in which he threatened or insulted no one, is deserving of a lawsuit that will leave him sitting pretty the rest of his life.
I hope this guy hires a lawyer on this to make things uncomfortable for his employer(s) and not just an EEOC complaint. Sounds like he has a wrongful termination case that these compannies would probably be willing to pay to make go away.
While everyone here applauds Michigan for being a "Right to work" state, we are also an "At Will" state which means that any company can terminate any employee for any reason.
This particular employee chose to go public in his opinion about Ford which jeopardized his employer's relationship with Ford and was appropriately fired.
If this gentleman was so concerned about Ford's policy on homosexuality then he shouldn't have accepted the job............
Now that I have donned my flame suit, here are the answers to the anticipated flames:
1. No, I am not a libtard
2. NO, I do not support homosexuality
3. NO, I am not a pro-choicer
4. NO to any other obnoxious claim you can make of me........
I've worked in both the plant and corporate atmosphere and am fully aware of all the anti-discrimination policies such corporations have been forced to enact.
Do I agree with them? No, but it is the law and it is the company's policy and if you want to keep your job then you had better keep your mouth shut.........
There is no freedom of speech.
This is a very troublesome development. I’ve never had a problem with the company I work for concerning this matter but it tends attract more conservative no nonsense people. I did get in an argument once but not one that I initiated and if I were going to get fired over my opinion it would’ve been then but I didn’t. I refuse to be silent on this issue. I’m not ashamed of believing the mundane idea that men and women are parts of a complementary whole and that the natural and best union is between one man and one woman. I do believe that we should never let ourselves be baited to anger. Our opponents are the ones that should be put on the defensive because THEY not us are proposing something that is radical and extreme.
There is no freedom of speech.
The 1st Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No, the 1st Amendment re freedom of speech does not apply in this instance.
i would agree with you, except they asked for feedback, and he gave it to them.
You're right about the "at will" part, but my buying a Ford product is also at will. I hate to say it after cheering for Ford over the past few years, but I just may go transplant next time.
And I really don't want to.
As a contractor they could terminate him for no reason, and be in the clear. Or just assign him to something very specific and when he finishes that, shake his hand, take him to lunch, and send him on his way.
What is different is that they asked for his comment, and told him his comment was the reason for his firing.
As a contractor, he ought not to have commented, he should have left that to the direct employees. I would have. That makes him imprudent. But since they asked for the opinion they fired him for, and admitted it was the real reason for his firing, he may have a good case in court if he gets a decent judge.
>>Now even disagreeing with the homonazis is unacceptable.
It always has been.
Unlike during the modern urban revolution, there were no independent entrepreneurs competing amongst each other. The world’s first city developed around its temples, and only later did palaces play a role. Its view of the world was conditioned, as in all ancient societies, by totalitarian religious belief. So the picture that comes into focus is that of a theocratic command economy, hierarchically organized , centrally directed, and regulated according to an ideology propagated by a priesthood, playing the role that, 5,000 years later, Soviet Marxists would call ‘the engineers of human souls’. Such was temple rule.Kriwaczek, Paul (2012-03-27). Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilization (p. 53). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition.
The state-establishment's bee keeping Eunuchs have never tolerated criticism when it was within their purview to be intolerant of it.
Fallible and Uninspired Men/Women/Other have assumed dominion, again.
DO NOT participate in liberalism’s social or attitudinal surveys. Ignore them.
The problem is, those surveys are designed to find out who doesn’t agree.
Corporations nowadays do NOT care about freedom.
They only care about creating conformity....
I learned long ago, and the hard way (layoff & being blackballed) , that HR is NOT your friend, and does NOT care about your opinions.
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.