Victory For Religious Employee Fired By AT&T (Refused to sign pro-homosexual handbook)

The Rutherford Institute ^

[Cedar]

Rutherford Institute Secures Victory For Religious Employee Fired By AT&T For Refusing To Sign Certificate Of Understanding About Homosexuality

DENVER —In response to a lawsuit filed by Rutherford Institute attorneys, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has ruled in favor of a Denver man who was fired from his job with AT&T Broadband after he refused to sign off on portions of the company’s employee handbook that he felt violated his sincerely held religious beliefs. The ruling awards Albert Buonanno with back pay and lost 401(k) matching contributions arising out of AT&T’s refusal to accommodate his religious beliefs.

Buonanno, a “Quota Specialist” with AT&T Broadband, started working for AT&T in January 1999. In January 2001, AT&T published a new employee handbook. All employees were required to sign a written acknowledgment that they had received it, as well as a “Certificate of Understanding.” The Certificate contained a statement that the employee signing it “agreed with and accepted” all of the terms and provisions of the 84-page handbook, including its policies and rules. However, upon reviewing the 84-page handbook, Buonanno, a Christian with sincerely-held religious beliefs regarding homosexuality, found several things he could not, in good conscience, agree to. On page 6, under the section titled “Diversity,” the handbook stated: “Each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us.” On page 67, the company gave sexual orientation protected status. For Buonanno, to acknowledge that he agrees with a lifestyle which he believes to be sinful would be to compromise his faith and contradict what he considers the Bible’s views on homosexuality to be. Buonanno shared his concerns about the statement with his immediate supervisor and informed him that he had no problem declaring he would not discriminate against or harass people who were different from him, including homosexuals, but he could not sign the statement required by AT&T because it contradicted his sincerely held religious beliefs. On Jan. 31, 2001, Buonanno presented his written statement and the unsigned Certificate to his supervisor, who alerted AT&T’s human resources representative. When Buonanno reported to work the next morning, he was immediately escorted to the human resources representative’s office and informed that AT&T would terminate his employment if he refused to sign the Certificate. When Buonanno explained his proposed accommodation to the human resources representative, she informed him that his continued employment at AT&T was dependent on his signature. Buonanno declined to sign the Certificate and was immediately terminated.

“This issue is about more than an objection to homosexuality. It concerns the freedom of conscience—the right of individuals to object to something they believe is wrong, especially when it contradicts their religious beliefs, whether it is war, abortion, homosexuality or a number of other issues,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “This was just one case among many in which employees continue to be wrongfully denied accommodation and the right to freedom of conscience because of their religious beliefs—rights guaranteed both under federal law and under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.

[Cedar]

All workers in this country need to realize that they do not have to agree with nor sign the company policies forcing them to "recognize, respect and value" homosexuality.

Stand your ground!

[Support Free Republic]

---

	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-

[JerseyHighlander]

It could have gone the other way, and we could have joined Canada on their strange trip.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping + Good, Good News - Rutherford does it again!!!!

Everyone working for companies having these sorts of pro-homosexual materials, rules, and so on should read this article carefully. Ditto if you have relatives or friends is similar situations.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist!

(PS I have a friend who also won a court case (somewhat related circumstances, involving, I believe, freedom of speech issues and homosexuality) with Rutherford defending him.)

[supercat]

If a company wants to order employees to sign a statement agreeing that the moon is made of green cheese or be fired, it should have the right to do so. It would soon go out of business after all its good employees quit, but the company should have the right to adopt such an ill-conceived policy if so inclined.

[fire_eye]

There's no way I'd sign something like that either - and not for religious reasons, but because I'm not going to say I "Agree" with ANY bureaucrat's "Policy. However, AFAIK there is no protection for any employee AFA what their company can require them to do, within the bounds of legality, *except* if they're working for the Feddle Gummint (or maybe whatever State Gummint may be involved...).

I'm surprised the guy won this case - my guess would have been that - as you say - AT&T could require him to view homosexual sodomy videos by way of "Sensitivity Training" and there's be nothing he could do about it.

I need to go look & see if there are any AT&T services on my phone bill that I can cancel... I'm just waiting for some AT&T droid to call me up & try to sell me something or ask why I cancelled something, so I can cut them a new clymer...

[Sam the Sham]

If a company wants to order employees to sign a statement agreeing that the moon is made of green cheese or be fired, it should have the right to do so. It would soon go out of business after all its good employees quit, but the company should have the right to adopt such an ill-conceived policy if so inclined.

No, it does not have the right to do so. The company has the right to demand that you do your best to get along with your co workers. But it does not have the right to dictate your cultural values.

...after all its good employees quit ? And who told you that opportunists or secularists can't be capable and efficient ?

[hford02]

The saddest element of this story is not even mentioned:
that ONLY ONE CHRISTIAN EMPLOYEE OUT OF THOUSANDS EVEN BOTHERED TO OBJECT.....
We empower these people by our silence. What they do to us is because we allow it.

[LTCJ]

the company should have the right to adopt such an ill-conceived policy if so inclined.

My response has been to strike out the offending statement, initial it, and explain to my boss my reason for doing so. Case in point: requiring that I "place the company's interest above all others" in the business conduct policy. The wording was obtuse. I explained I could not and would not place the company's interest above that of my God, my family, or my country. It was accepted with an agreeing head shake and no further comment.

I keep coming to work and they keep paying me.

[King Prout]

hrmn.

I have mixed opinion of this.

On the one hand, I am glad that the creeping "normalization" of homosexuality was given even so trivial a check as this.

On the other hand, a private individual, group, corporation, or organization should have the power to choose who it will hire and retain, rent to, or otherwise do business with, and on what grounds.

I believe this falls under freedom of asociation (with its corollary: freedom FROM association) under the First Amendment, as well as the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Cases in point:
- The BSA should, by all means, have the right to exclude homosexuals from positions of authority.
- A Christian-based charity organization should have the unchallengeable power to refuse to hire or retain Muslims, pagans, heretics, and flagrant and unrepentant sinners.
- If a nationally dispersed and popular restaraunt chain wishes to hire and retain ONLY cute, busty, extroverted young women as waitresses... get the hint?
- To get utterly ridiculous for a moment, the Aryan Nation - were it ever to found a home-office - should have the unquestioned right to exclude minorities and their sympathizers from its payroll.

This has a variant bearing on this case:
If a company desires to hire and retain only poofs and their sympathizers, I cannot see where the government in any of its forms has any business interfering with this practice, and any suit brought before any court claiming wrongful termination on these grounds should be summarily dismissed.

In the same way, if AT&T wishes to employ ONLY the utterly PC-whipped, so be it.

[King Prout]

agreed - see #10

[AD from SpringBay]

...ONLY ONE CHRISTIAN EMPLOYEE OUT OF THOUSANDS EVEN BOTHERED TO OBJECT...

Bump to that! What's wrong is wrong. If there was more outspoken intolerance we wouldn't be in the cultural mess we're in and I'm not being sarcastic. There's nothing wrong with intolerance. Everyone gets their opinion - except people that disagree with the filth. Time to change that.

[Drawsing]

I agree, but perhaps the reason he won the case is because AT&T's personnel policies have something to do with government contracts...just speculating.

[MrB]

This one brave voice though, may give the others the courage and encouragement that they needed.

I applaud this brave leader, but I don't condemn those who don't lead.

[GraceCoolidge]

I share your "mixed opinion," but was very glad to see a Christian being protected by anti-discrimination law. I think it is really a wake up call when your employer assumes the right to dictate how you think, as opposed to how you act or perform your job. I wonder, though, if AT&T is in a special position due to the nature of its work (i.e., subject to more government regulation). Personally, I find the idea of being asked to "value" someone else's lifestyle bizarre. All these special groups claim they are asking only for tolerance...but that is proven more untrue every day. For others to tolerate them is insufficient... we must celebrate them! I see no reason why co-workers need to celebrate each other's sexuality of any orientation. I'd be happy if I could get some decent customer service from AT&T; when my telephone goes out, the extent to which AT&T employees are valuing homosexuality really isn't on my radar screen. I give this guy a lot of credit for taking a stand.

[GraceCoolidge]

According to the Denver Post, "Buonanno sued AT&T Broadband under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects employees from discrimination based on race, sex, religious beliefs, national ancestry or color." Makes sense to me.

[King Prout]

I give him credit, as well, but I don't think his case should have made it to court, for reasons already stated.

on all your other points: agreed. I am a nazi at work. the only thing a worker is paid to do is WORK. all else is theft.

[little jeremiah]

A couple problems that I see are that many, many companies now do this. I don't know enough to say the majority, or even how many. But it is a common practice.

Second, there are so many governmental regulations - state and as far as I know fed - mandating "non-discrimination" policies which include sexual orientation.

Third, suppose it was company policy to make employees sign statements or policy thingies that forced acceptance of other vices? How about bestiality, or child/adult sex?

[King Prout]

I have long believed that EEOC rules are unconstitutional usurpations of the 1st, 9th, and 10th amendment rights of private citizens and corporations.

[little jeremiah]

Tell this admitted layman what the EEOC rules are! {I'm sure I wouldn't like them either..;-)}