Posted on 01/06/2004 3:50:25 PM PST by machman
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A federal appeals court Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling that Hewlett-Packard Co. did not violate the rights of a devout Christian employee when it fired him for posting Biblical scriptures on his cubicle that were critical of homosexuality.
The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that HP did not discriminate against Richard Peterson when it fired him after he posted quotes from the Bible in his cubicle in response to company posters featuring gay employees.
The HP posters, which carried the slogan "Diversity is Our Strength," were part of an effort to promote the computer and printer maker's bid to hire and retain a diverse work force.
Peterson was fired for insubordination after refusing to remove the biblical postings, which managers determined could be viewed as offensive.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote that Peterson, a veteran HP employee who worked in HP's Boise, Idaho office, had failed to provide evidence he was sacked for his religious beliefs.
Instead, Reinhardt held Peterson was fired for repeatedly disregarding instructions to remove his biblical postings, including one from Leviticus explicitly addressing homosexuality.
A passage, which Peterson had conceded was "intended to be hurtful," reads: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Judge Reinhardt said it would have been an "undue hardship" for HP to have accommodated Peterson's demands that he be allowed to post scriptures in response to the posters, or that he remove his postings in exchange for HP taking down its posters promoting diversity.
Either option would have also hurt the company's efforts to "attract and retain a qualified, diverse work force, which the company reasonably views as vital to its commercial success," Reinhardt wrote.
Lawyers for Peterson and Palo Alto, California-based HP could not be immediately reached for comment.
Copyright 2004, Reuters News Service
The 1st Amedmnet only restricts government behavior. There is no constitutionally-protected freedom of speech at one's place of work.
So, if you have a little bumper sticker in your cube that says something like "Let's burn a jew", or "Have you killed a niger today", you feel that should be allowed? Creating a hostile envirnment is not to be tolerated.... period.
For a refresher, here's the paragraph from the article.
A passage, which Peterson had conceded was "intended to be hurtful," reads: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Let's see, not only is this verse using religion as a weapon; creating a hostile work environment, I can also find an implied death threat there.
You sound like a candidate for unionization.
Unfortunately, anti-discrimination (read: compulsory association) laws have greatly undermined this important right. If the employer in this case had put up posters celebrating Christianity, and the employee had been a homosexual, I'm certain the court would have decided differently.
I blame HP for shoving homosexuality in the employee's face via the "diversity" poster. And I will express my disgust by never buying an HP product again.
I refuse to patronize any company that mocks my beliefs.
Nor the Life. Nor the Way.
There were quotation marks around the statement.
And this from the AP:
Peterson, who had worked for Hewlett-Packard for 21 years, objected on religious grounds to the diversity posters the company put up calling for tolerance of gay employees. As a devoted Christian, he said he had a duty "to expose evil when confronted with it" and did that by posting the bible verses where other employees could see them.Among those verses was the highly controversial passage from Leviticus: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
His supervisor removed the verses because they could be offensive to other employees, prompting a series of meetings between managers and Peterson. A resolution of the dispute could not be worked out, and Peterson informed company officials that as long as they condoned homosexuality through their diversity campaign, he would oppose it.
He was given some time off with pay to consider his position, but when he returned to work he again posted the verses. Following additional meetings with managers, he was fired for insubordination.
If, after several meetings asking them to remove the offensive material and being given paid leave of absence, they still refuse to remove the offensive material, then yes.
That said, I think hp is silly to have such a campaign sucking up to diversity. And I understand your support of the guys beliefs. hp did what they felt they had to do. They have lost another customer because of it.
The only distinction I'm drawing is that employers must have the right to make stupid decisions in a capitalistic society. And a free society. If employer and employee don't get along, fire 'em. History will judge whether the employer made the right decision or not.
Who owns the cube? You do not, nor will you ever own your cube. The cube is provided as a gracious gift by your employer. I have worked for companies who did not furnish their employees cubes. Engineers spent their entire day sitting at a bench with lab gear. The cube is a benefit. It is not yours, and your rules do not apply in the cube. Where did you think that the cube was somehow your private property?
Should all those possibly offensive-to-someone pictures, quotes, statements all be barred or the posters thereof be fired as well?
They are, if I place some Playboy posters in my cube, I may be given a warning and the opportunty to take them down. If I continue to place them in my cube, I would certainly expect to be fired.
The fact that it was a bible verse is not important. The person went out of his way to create a harmful and threatening environment. He was warned not to do this, and was graciously given paid time off to ponder his decision. He took the paid time off, and decided that he liked abusing his co-workers. When you work for a company, you have a choice. Abide by their rules, or work elsewhere.
I'm not sure who was forced to celebrate anything in this case. I believe the company was just asking for its workers to show respect for each other in the workplace.
In any case, the First Amendment does not apply to a private company.
Amen!
I agree with you here. I won't be buying any more HP and I'll be selling my stock in HP but you're absolutely right here. Rheinharts reasoning is wrong but the holding is right.
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.