Posted on 07/20/2005 7:57:26 AM PDT by 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.
And why not? Although Allstate is a large corporation, hiring and firing decisions are entirely private matters. The principle is exactly the same as if it were only a three-employee small business.
The question boils down to this: Does an employer have the right to hire and fire whom he chooses? If the answer is "Yes", then the employer's reasons for those choices are entirely immaterial. If the answer is "No", then the only remaining issue is just how far the government chooses to intrude into those decisions. The intrusions will always grow, as everything else does under government control.
The Constitution does not give the government the authority to regulate private arrangements such as employment. Doing so, even in the name of the most noble of ideals, is simply unconstitutionalm, IMO. Our government was never intended to regulate everything, making sure everyone is nice to each other. Specifially, unless an employer is practicing slavery, meaning an employee can't leave, then I don't see any standing for a complaint. If Allstate is an anti-Christian, pro-homosexual corporation, then perhaps remaining Christian employees should begin to find other jobs.
A key concept is good faith dealing. If I deal in good faith with my customers, suppliers and employees (themselves, de facto suppliers) then I can expect to ideally be unencumbered by excessive regulations. Have levels of regulation gone overboard? Definitely! But, should I, as argued by newgeezer, as an employer, have the "freedom" to use my hiring and firing authority to craft, in microcosm, a liberal utopia that is not even a real microcosm of the lion's share of society? It would seem that doing so violates the notion of good faith, therefore inviting targetted interference by political pressure groups, government or both. Allstate deserve to be hammered, irrespective of the letter of the law, due to their bad faith dealing in this case.
Many may recognize my line of thought from contract law ...
To inject a little reason here, the prohibition on demographic firing of older workers to avoid the payment of retirement benefits can be viewed as an issue of bad-faith bargaining on the contract (for the pension) drawn between the company and the individual. When there is a pattern of such behavior on the company's part, it indicates they have been making the commitment (in writing) for a pension for the workers without the intention to fulfill their commitments.
If an individual older worker is fired or layed off, there is not necessarily pattern-based evidence of breach of contract.
With respect to this specific case, I think the gentleman should not have been fired. It think it was wrong, especially if there was no known rule against this behavior. But that doesn't mean it was illegal, or should be.
The most effective way to counter this is to have AllState products be shunned by those who believe this action was wrong - voluntarily shunned.
Just my opinion, of course.
The 'intrusion' as you call it will always grow because working people will always ask the power of the state to protect them from arbitrary workplace bullying. Or to be more specific, because working women will always demand the power of the state to protect them from male bullying. It is no accident that workplace regulation is a function of the entry of women into the workforce and the very practical, realistic need of women to protect themselves. And whether newgeezer recognizes it or not the protection of women and the domestication of male urges are the prime functions of civilization.
As GOP_1900AD pointed out no contract can be valid if it is contrary to public policy. For instance, a will that mandated that the heir never marry in order to inherit would be void. A prenup demanded of a pregnant bride is void. An employment contract that allowed the employer to trample on the employee's privacy rights is similarly contrary to public policy.
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.