Worker opposed to gays wins suit

Washington Times ^ | April 7th, 2004 | Amy Fagan

[missyme]

An AT&T Broadband employee who was fired after refusing to abide by company rules that he said violated his religious beliefs about homosexuality has won a federal court case. Judge Marcia S. Krieger of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado awarded Albert Buonanno of Denver $146,269 for lost salary, loss of 401(k) matching contributions and compensation for emotional distress in a Friday ruling released this week. The judge found that although there was no direct religious discrimination against Mr. Buonanno, AT&T Broadband failed to show it could not have accommodated Mr. Buonanno's beliefs "without undue hardship" to the company he had been with for nearly two years. Mr. Buonanno objected to language in a new employee handbook issued in January 2001 that said "each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us," including sexual orientation. He was fired after refusing to sign a "certificate of understanding" acknowledging that he agreed to the policy. The Civil Rights Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of employees unless the employer can show it will create an undue hardship on the company to do so. Mr. Buonanno felt his Christian beliefs prevented him from valuing or agreeing with homosexuality, which he views as a sin, but he pledged not to discriminate against or harass anyone, said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, the group that represented Mr. Buonanno. "This issue is about more than an objection to homosexuality," Mr. Whitehead said. "It concerns the freedom of conscience

[missyme]

What religion endorses homosexuals anyways, only apostate and well that's about it.

[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-

[henderson field]

Shame on AT&T. In my experience with them, they are a sleazy organization. They themselves are intolerant, and careless with customers' identities.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

An AT&T Broadband employee who was fired after refusing to abide by company rules that he said violated his religious beliefs about homosexuality has won a federal court case.
    Judge Marcia S. Krieger of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado awarded Albert Buonanno of Denver $146,269 for lost salary, loss of 401(k) matching contributions and compensation for emotional distress in a Friday ruling released this week.
    The judge found that although there was no direct religious discrimination against Mr. Buonanno, AT&T Broadband failed to show it could not have accommodated Mr. Buonanno's beliefs "without undue hardship" to the company he had been with for nearly two years.
    Mr. Buonanno objected to language in a new employee handbook issued in January 2001 that said "each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us," including sexual orientation. He was fired after refusing to sign a "certificate of understanding" acknowledging that he agreed to the policy.
    The Civil Rights Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of employees unless the employer can show it will create an undue hardship on the company to do so.
    Mr. Buonanno felt his Christian beliefs prevented him from valuing or agreeing with homosexuality, which he views as a sin, but he pledged not to discriminate against or harass anyone, said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, the group that represented Mr. Buonanno.
    "This issue is about more than an objection to homosexuality," Mr. Whitehead said. "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."
    A spokesman for Comcast, which owns AT&T Broadband, said, the company "is disappointed in the court's ruling," which they said appears to ignore attempts by companies "to foster diversity and nondiscrimination in the workplace."
    The spokesman, who asked not to be named, said the company is reviewing the case and might appeal the ruling. Mr. Buonanno did not ask the court to reinstate him as a quota specialist, instead seeking monetary compensation. He now works for Mental Health Corporation of Denver as a counselor.
    The ruling could embolden other Christians or religious people to challenge similar policies, said Mr. Whitehead, who expects court challenges to the "sensitivity training" companies sometimes require, which he said often aims at training workers to accept and value diversity, including homosexuality.
    "I think Buonanno is just the tip of the iceberg," Mr. Whitehead said.
    Mr. Buonanno wasn't asking anything that would unduly burden the company — such as granting him every Wednesday off for religious purposes, Mr. Whitehead said.
    "All he was saying that he couldn't agree that he would value the homosexual lifestyle ... which as a fundamentalist Christian he sees as a sinful lifestyle," said Mr. Whitehead.
    But AT&T made "no attempt to even reasonably accommodate him," and they couldn't show undue hardship would occur if they did.
    In the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could have done to avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge not to discriminate, or even rewriting the language to make it less ambiguous.

[2nd amendment mama]

An AT&T Broadband employee who was fired after refusing to abide by company rules that he said violated his religious beliefs about homosexuality has won a federal court case.

   Judge Marcia S. Krieger of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado awarded Albert Buonanno of Denver $146,269 for lost salary, loss of 401(k) matching contributions and compensation for emotional distress in a Friday ruling released this week.

   The judge found that although there was no direct religious discrimination against Mr. Buonanno, AT&T Broadband failed to show it could not have accommodated Mr. Buonanno's beliefs "without undue hardship" to the company he had been with for nearly two years.

   Mr. Buonanno objected to language in a new employee handbook issued in January 2001 that said "each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us," including sexual orientation. He was fired after refusing to sign a "certificate of understanding" acknowledging that he agreed to the policy.

   The Civil Rights Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of employees unless the employer can show it will create an undue hardship on the company to do so.

   Mr. Buonanno felt his Christian beliefs prevented him from valuing or agreeing with homosexuality, which he views as a sin, but he pledged not to discriminate against or harass anyone, said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, the group that represented Mr. Buonanno.

   "This issue is about more than an objection to homosexuality," Mr. Whitehead said. "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."

   A spokesman for Comcast, which owns AT&T Broadband, said, the company "is disappointed in the court's ruling," which they said appears to ignore attempts by companies "to foster diversity and nondiscrimination in the workplace."

    The spokesman, who asked not to be named, said the company is reviewing the case and might appeal the ruling. Mr. Buonanno did not ask the court to reinstate him as a quota specialist, instead seeking monetary compensation. He now works for Mental Health Corporation of Denver as a counselor.

    The ruling could embolden other Christians or religious people to challenge similar policies, said Mr. Whitehead, who expects court challenges to the "sensitivity training" companies sometimes require, which he said often aims at training workers to accept and value diversity, including homosexuality.

    "I think Buonanno is just the tip of the iceberg," Mr. Whitehead said.

    Mr. Buonanno wasn't asking anything that would unduly burden the company — such as granting him every Wednesday off for religious purposes, Mr. Whitehead said.

    "All he was saying that he couldn't agree that he would value the homosexual lifestyle ... which as a fundamentalist Christian he sees as a sinful lifestyle," said Mr. Whitehead.

    But AT&T made "no attempt to even reasonably accommodate him," and they couldn't show undue hardship would occur if they did.

    In the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could have done to avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge not to discriminate, or even rewriting the language to make it less ambiguous.

[KC_Conspirator]

Its amazing the liberal media blackout of a story like this.

[Samwise]

Wow! I hope this isn't overturned.

[Tall_Texan]

This is good to see and I hope the ruling is not appealed. The company overreacted. I realize they make people sign these things in order to cover their own legal butts in case of descrimination lawsuits but they need to understand that they cannot force groupthink on individuals that violate their consciences.

I am a Christian and do see homosexual conduct as sinful. Nonetheless, I work around homosexuals at the office and have always gotten along well with them. Some have been exemplary employees and, as long as they keep their lifestyle choice from impacting their work or the workers around them, I don't have a problem being in the same office with them. I'd be just as upset with heterosexuals that try to hit on their office co-workers or sneak off for a quickie as I would homosexuals that do the same thing. Both, to me, are offenses worthy of termination, regardless of sexual orientation.

So, depending on how the paper was worded, I could have signed such a form in good conscience or I couldn't. It just depends on how it was worded. And I have refused to sign some forms and not been disciplined for it. AT&T could have easily done the same thing.

[teletech]

Shame on AT&T. In my experience with them, they are a sleazy organization. They themselves are intolerant, and careless with customers' identities.

I retired from AT&T and although I worked for another division, I never had to sign such a document. I guess I retired just in time.

[Graybeard58]

I never had to sign such a document. I guess I retired just in time.

That makes two of us. I didn't work for ATT but my company was requiring ALL employees to take a "sensitivity" class, just as I was retiring. I'm already as sensitive as I will ever be at 58 years old!

[teletech]

That makes two of us. I didn't work for ATT but my company was requiring ALL employees to take a "sensitivity" class, just as I was retiring. I'm already as sensitive as I will ever be at 58 years old!

LOL!

[rogueleader]

Re-freeped.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1112849/posts

[Dark Knight]

I hope that this ruling is appealed...and upheld. The higher the court and the wider it's jurisdiction the better.

DK

[thulldud]

as long as they keep their lifestyle choice from impacting their work or the workers around them, I don't have a problem being in the same office with them.

The joker in the deck here is that this is not a "lifestyle choice", but a form of bondage. All the stuff that we have been fed about homosexuality for the last 30 years has been aimed particularly at concealing its true nature -- a prison formed by lust. Using the term "gay" to describe it is an example of Orwellian "blackwhite" labeling.

The cultural elitists protect this prison out of instinct, knowing that the only way to escape it is a way that they would willingly be boiled in oil before admitting its truth, or even its existence. Instead, they have tried to recast the business in the mold of the civil rights movement, as if homosexual behavior were somehow a badge of unchangeable identity rather than a symptom of spiritual sickness (with a Physician waiting ready to help!) They deliberately try to stir up hate and anger, the better to insure that the prisoners stay well within the bars, away from help and the chance of escape. And they suppress the stories of those who do escape.

All I can say is, they better not bring one of these documents to me. I cannot agree to leave my neighbors and potential brothers enslaved in this manner without a word. If that is "hate", then I don't wanna see what they call "love". (Really!)

[Tall_Texan]

I accept that a workplace is generally one of differing viewpoints and value systems. My employers pay me to do what work they require, not to evangelize or "correct" others in their sinfulness. I wouldn't want coworkers trying to convert me to Buddhism or Islam so I give them the same courtesy.

Away from the workplace, that can be a different story as you choose with whom you want to associate with and, should the discussion go that way, you can discuss what you believe and why. I also wouldn't go about browbeating others over their lifestyle choices as I've found it usually is just returned with hatred and resentment. Too many use the Scriptures as a sledgehammer instead of a lantern.

Yes, maybe some will not hear the Good News because I didn't discuss it with them but I'd rather they observe my good works and my faith and then ask me why I'm that way instead of wearing my religion on my sleeve. In a secular workplace, I believe that is the best approach.

[weegee]

"The spokesman, who asked not to be named..."

He's in the wrong business then. If he can't stand firm and defend the company's position, then maybe the company's position IS harassment and undefensible.

[weegee]

I'd be just as upset with heterosexuals that try to hit on their office co-workers or sneak off for a quickie as I would homosexuals that do the same thing. Both, to me, are offenses worthy of termination, regardless of sexual orientation.

You are living in the past. According to N.O.W., you get one free grope now before touching is considered sexual harassment. Also, there is no crime in a manager having sex with an unpaid intern on the company time (even if you are on the phone discussing privileged information). This is the trouble wrought by the pass given by the left to Clintigula's reign of error.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

ping

[BUCKSBUD]

AT&T could have saved themselves alot of time and money had they just listened to his point of view, however as with all large companies they were arogant and now paying the price for it. The company mentality is "YOU want us to change this document after all the time and money we put into this? NO WAY! We will just fire you and be done with it."
I think the guy should get alot more and a metal to boot.