Posted on 12/21/2013 7:13:53 AM PST by vg0va3
Religious Discrimination
Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.
Religious discrimination can also involve treating someone differently because that person is married to (or associated with) an individual of a particular religion or because of his or her connection with a religious organization or group.
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment. Religious Discrimination & Harassment
It is illegal to harass a person because of his or her religion.
Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person’s religious beliefs or practices. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren’t very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
Religious Discrimination and Segregation
Title VII also prohibits workplace or job segregation based on religion (including religious garb and grooming practices), such as assigning an employee to a non-customer contact position because of actual or feared customer preference.
(Excerpt) Read more at eeoc.gov ...
Looking at the EEOC description of Religious Discrimination and Segregation doesn't Title VII prevent Phil from being segregated to a non-customer contact position? And now knowing that A&E was present during the interview could their conduct be considered harassment? A&E stated publicly tha, ""We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,"
It seems to me that their action is the definition of Religious Discrimination by the EEOC.
And make it hurt. No lube.
What Phil Robertson needs to do is to move to another cable network.
Sarah Palin already offered him a spot.
I hope he moves. For real.
I would bet he was never an “employee” of A&E, but rather, some type of at-will contractor. TV stations usually structure their contracts with all kinds of clauses that avoid making people actual employees as much as possible.
I’m an employment lawyer and he has to be an employee of A&E to have a cause of action. Any rights he have would probably have to arise out of his contract.
Meaning no offense to the legal profession, but I doubt much would be accomplished through a lawsuit, even if there were grounds. The popularity of Robertson’s TV show is based on the family and it’s content, not on the fact that it happened to air on A&Es cable channel. Thus I hope he moves to a network that is more supportive, and leaves A&E to contemplate the wisdom of its business decision.
Ping
Thank you for your response. It made me check my contract and I noted that I have a procedure for handling EEOC claims. For instance, seeking arbitration to gain a settlement rather than trial.
Is it common for IC to release the company from EEOC Title VII claims?
I understand each contract is different. However, I just can’t imagine that the federal government would allow contract labor employers to avoid discrimination claims, but make them provide other less important protections.
If you are a lawyer, let me ask then, does he have a libel lawsuit? There is definite impact on his financial worth. A&E has essentially labeled him a bigot.
I’m interested in the business law aspects.
I too am interested in what suit if any can be brought against A&E. It is long past time that Christians start bringing countersuit against those who willfully violate our religious rights to secure secular “rights” not enumerated.
Definitely it’s a case of discrimination based on religion.
The case doesn’t even have to mention anything about homosexuality because Phil Robertson was quoting scripture (expressing religious beliefs) in an interview that was not associated with the business of A&E and they fired him and maligned him for it.
Simple outline of the case:
1. Contractor makes legal religious expression during activity not associated with and separate from Managing company.
2. Managing company objects to such religious expression of contractor and retaliates.
Case is clear and in favor of the contractor.
I think that depends on what PR believes his mission is when serving the Lord. If he is only focused on the $ then sure, why take legal action.
However, if he believes that he needs to fight discrimination due to his or any other Christian’s beliefs why would he sit back.
He could actually sue for no damages.
There are certain implied federal protections in any contract whether spelled out or not.
For example firing a woman physician not employed but under contract because she is pregnant.
silly moose…. that doesn’t apply to Christians
does he have AN, not AND
Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals) calls for making the enemy live and operate by the letter of their rules, turn their organizations against them. COOL!
y’all are missing the bigger problem with an EEOC lawsuit.
HE WILL LOSE.
Which federal judge is going to uphold the very laws that they have made, that now come back to bite them in the ass?
John Roberts (Bush Appointee) puts us all in “Insurance” bondage, and you think that the ruling class is going to uphold someone’s right to “Equal Opportunity”.
You have totally missed why those laws have been written in the first place.
We are at war. Act accordingly.
Sorry to offend you grammatical senses when posting with a cell phone.
Here is some advice from me since you are so eager to offer your own. Sometimes it is better to ignore something so meaningless as a “d” than to come across as AND jack ass.
Do you have anything else to add?
They would have no interest in anything else.
This is not an employment issue. It’s a contract issue. So you have to look at contract law and at the specifics of the contract agreed to by both A&E and the Duck Dynasty personnel. Basically, has the contract been breached by either A&E or by Phil Robertson? Without seeing the contract, we’re just guessing.
All A&E has said is that Phil Robertson is on hiatus from filming. He hasn’t been fired and there is no mention of any reduction in contract payments. I don’t see how this is any different from any major TV program omitting a character from several episodes. As long as the actor is getting paid for the episodes, even if his character is not a part of those episodes, there is no breach of contract on the part of A&E.
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.