Attorney: Fired Allstate Employee's Trial Carries Implications for Religious Freedom

Agape Press ^ | July 19, 2005 | Jim Brown

[Woodland]

Attorney: Fired Allstate Employee's Trial Carries Implications for Religious Freedom

By Jim Brown July 19, 2005

(AgapePress) - There's a pre-trial hearing on Wednesday (July 20) in the case of a former Allstate employee who claims the insurance company fired him for writing an article against homosexual "marriage." The outcome of the case will likely determine whether a Christian employee can be fired for expressing his religious beliefs while off the job.

Former Allstate security manager Matt Barber recently filed a federal lawsuit against the company, alleging viewpoint discrimination. An investigation by the state of Illinois concluded that Barber was terminated because an "outside organization" complained about an article he wrote on his own time. The article defending traditional marriage appeared on several conservative Internet sites. (See earlier article)

Barber's attorney, Matt Davis, says there is a great deal riding on the outcome of the case.

"As we get more and more politically correct in our society, [large] employers like Allstate [that employ] literally hundreds of thousands ...are beginning to try to 'mellow out' the message that not only they make as a corporation, but then also then what is reflected amongst their employees," the attorney says, adding that he sees irony in the situation. "Here you have a company, in the name of tolerance, exercising an extreme degree of intolerance."

Since the state investigation, Allstate has backed off its original claim and is arguing Barber was not fired because of his conservative views. Davis says the Fortune 100 company is backpedaling.

"It would be one thing if you had a manager disseminating this kind of information to his employees and misusing the company systems or somehow on company time espousing views that they don't agree with. That would be one thing," he says. "But here we're talking about a guy from his home computer who takes a position from the Bible that he believes, and the company reaching into his living room and saying, 'We don't agree with that -- you're outta here.'"

Allstate has been a strong supporter of same-sex marriage by giving thousands of dollars in donations to homosexual activist groups. According to the American Family Association, Allstate gave $10,000 to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), a homosexual organization which promotes homosexual marriage; $5,000 to the Indiana University office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Student Support Services; and $15,000 to the Gay & Lesbian Center in Los Angeles. AFA says Allstate also supports homosexual websites with advertising dollars.

In addition, the insurance company was listed by Diversity Inc. recently in its "Top 10 Companies for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Employees." Joining Allstate on that list were such household names as Eastman Kodak, Ford Motor Company, Citigroup, Pepsico, Merck and Company, and the Coca-Cola Company.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Brown, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.

[newgeezer]

You sure seem angry about something. Maybe you need a break.

[Terabitten]

It's not your job. Surely there are other and better ways of dealing with unreasonable employers. Government's legislating and regulating how and when and on whom a capitalist can spend his capital cannot possibly be the best answer.

So employers should simply fire someone the day before they're scheduled to retire - no paying retirement benefits then

[MEGoody]

Rather than turning to Uncle Sam for help, workers could, for instance, pool their measly resources to form a coalition and expose and put pressure on a-hole employers such as those you mentioned.

This is called a labor union.

[newgeezer]

This is called a labor union.

Yes, that's one such manifestation of the idea.

[MEGoody]

But if Allstate can legally get away with firing a pro-marriage guy for his writings off work hours, what's to stop me from firing the transvestite? I actually think that this may be a GOOD THING for pro-business conservatives.

You won't be able to, though, and we all know it.

[Sam the Sham]

The folly of libertarianism never ceases to amaze me.

[MEGoody]

Yes, that's one such manifestation of the idea.

Given the choice, I'll take a few governmet restrictions on employers which protects the employees' constitutional rights rather than have more labor unions. You might disagree, and that's fine. But unions. . .they served their purpose, then stuck around to bring us people like Kennedy. No thanks.

[newgeezer]

So employers should simply fire someone the day before they're scheduled to retire - no paying retirement benefits then

Oh, sure. That'll go over real well with current and future employees and customers alike.

Besides, one obvious way to mitigate the risk would be to take responsibility for one's own retirement benefits, rather than putting oneself at the mercy of one's employer.

[newgeezer]

One bad manifestation doesn't have to mean the idea is entirely without any merit.

[steelie]

Governments are formed by men. Rights and responsibilities are delineated with agreements among the people. Most if not all of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a limitation of federal government power. State governments are given leeway within that context.

There is an argument that can be made that fair treatment of employees is required of an employer. There is a real and implied contract between a employer and employee. Barring an employers "needs" you have a job,if you fulfill the requirements of the job. There are many needs of an employer. Manpower, decorum, ability etc, can all be a basis for discontinuing employment. An employee may also have a need to leave his employer.

When an employer contracts with an employee there is an obligation by both to completely and fairly fulfill that contract.

[savedbygrace]

Sounds like you're opining as to how you'd like things to be, rather than how things are.

Employment is a contract between employer and employee. The contract includes all relevant federal, state, and local laws, as well as verbal agreements. (Though verbal agreements are difficult to prove in court.)

Assuming the facts as published are true, it is likely that Allstate violated the employment contract with this employee by violating his 1st Amendment rights. If that or something similar is the final ruling, Allstate will likely have to pay monetary damages to the employee for violating that contract, as well as a hefty fine to the fedgov for the Civil Rights violation.

The man is not the property of the employee, no matter how you might want him to be. And as a conservative, surely you aren't suggesting that the employment contract is superceded by the employer's "job" rights? (since you keep repeating the chant that the job belongs to the company.)

[newgeezer]

So, what you're saying is, there's an implied contract that says, as long as the employee is fulfilling the needs of the employer -- and, as long as the need exists -- the employee should expect to remain employed. Thus, if the employer fires the employee for no (or no good) reason, the employer has breached that contract.

That's a very good point. However, I would also maintain an employer is within his rights to enter into a written contract with the employees (even to adopt such policy with ample written notice) stating that any employee may be dismissed without cause at the employer's discretion. Of course, unless such policy becomes the norm in the labor market, he may have trouble attracting and keeping good help. But, that's his problem.

[rawhide]

"Employers should be able to hire and fire anyone for any reason or no reason at all."

Sorry, newgeezer, you are losing your argument in this thread.
As for your argument that employees should band together to demand an unfair employer change their ways, one could make the argument we are doing just that when we elect certain people to represent us in government, with the understanding that they will enact certain laws to ensure employers will act in a fair and responsible way to their employees, and not subject them to unfair labor practices. Our government is a representative government, 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'.

[newgeezer]

Sounds like you're opining as to how you'd like things to be, rather than how things are.

Yes, of course.

Employment is a contract between employer and employee.

As luck would have it, I was just discussing that with steelie. His point about there being an implied contract is very good.

it is likely that Allstate violated the employment contract with this employee by violating his 1st Amendment rights.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, I am under the impression that the First Amendment protects us only from the government, not from our employers. For instance, Allstate is not required by law to allow its employees to express their opinions on company property. Mr. Barber is not free to post his anti-homo articles on his boss's door, on the bathroom walls, or to speak his mind to whomever happens to be walking through the halls. If Allstate violated the (implied) employment contract, it happened when it fired him without just cause.

The man is not the property of the employee, no matter how you might want him to be.

I believe I clarified that in a previous post.

And as a conservative, surely you aren't suggesting that the employment contract is superceded by the employer's "job" rights? (since you keep repeating the chant that the job belongs to the company.)

Please refer to my reply #52 to steelie.

[newgeezer]

one could make the argument we are doing just that when we elect certain people to represent us in government, with the understanding that they will enact certain laws to ensure employers will act in a fair and responsible way to their employees, and not subject them to unfair labor practices.

Sure, and while we're at it, we could cite the Commerce Clause to justify it.

[biblewonk]

Employers should be able to hire and fire anyone for any reason or no reason at all.

I disagree. When HyVee gets 1 million dollars in tax payers money to "provide jobs" and a service to the community, they should not be at liberty redefine what they are providing to that community by downgrading the promised employment.

Also on a different note, being part of a society that has so many dependencies on a secular government requires a certain secularness in employers.

[savedbygrace]

Correct me if I'm wrong but, I am under the impression that the First Amendment protects us only from the government, not from our employers.

You are correct and I was wrong. Substitute Civil Rights for 1st Amendment Rights and the argument holds.

That settled, I think the debate is over. Allstate loses this one.

[GOP_1900AD]

But in practice, the main point of view in publicly held corporations is Left leaning and PC and typically, only Rightists ever really get fired for their political activities outside of work. It's simply not right ethically.

[GOP_1900AD]

That's because gays are overrepresented in upper management and on boards of directors, versus the general percent of the overall population. Gays can truly marry the company and can be more flexible than married straights.

[GOP_1900AD]

RE: I think he wishes he were an agent for someone other than Allstate.

I predict he eventually will be. Gotta pay the bills! Helloooo State Farm! LOL ...