So why should the government get involved in any of this?
Yep. We have a winner:
“1) Christians should be able to practice their religion. Which means that Christian business owners should be able to evangelize if they so choose.
2) People should be able to quit any job they want at any time.
So why should the government get involved in any of this?”
Or a whole lot of other things, now that you mention it.
OK and yes, and I agree with this to a point. But just to be sure we are on the very same page; let’s say for a moment that you are hired at a grocery store where the owner is an Atheist and a liberal and he displays a “Darwin Fish” on the sign of his business. You know he is an Atheist and a liberal but since religion and or lack of religion or politics really has really nothing to do with the day to day activities of this business (it’s a grocery store and not an Atheist activism org. just as this business was not a church or “faith based” charity) or with you doing your job of cutting and wrapping meat, the job you were hired to do, and while you may not share or agree with or personally opposed to the owner’s personal POV, you don’t really think it will really impact you much as to the job you are hired to do and you take a “live and let live” attitude toward him and you are just happy to have a job – perhaps in a very small town, this is the best or perhaps only job you can find at the time.
The owner also knew you were a devoted and committed Christian when he hired you and evidently had no problem with this either and the owner even often praises you as being a very good and hard working employee as this employer allegedly did. But one day a customer makes a complaint about you, about “something inappropriate” you said – what exactly that was is not known but maybe you said “God Bless” or “Merry Christmas” to a customer who then complained to the owner that this was “inappropriate”.
So instead of taking to you about the actual complaint and or about your actual job performance which the owner has always in the past said was outstanding, or about any written violation of documented store policy, the owner calls you into his office and starts reading you passages from “God Is Not Great” and “The God Delusion”, telling you and yelling at you that you really need to read these books and that your “real problem” is your “religious life style” and being a Tea Party member. He also tells you that he now has a problem with your religion and with your politics and tells you, like this employer allegedly did, that he’s “looking through resumes and intends to replace you.”
Stille allegedly told Chafin he intended to replace her and would be going through job applications at the store, then ended the meeting. Chafin left the store and never returned.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/12/judge-store-owner-cant-lecture-employeeson-religion/3513239/
Of course, this is a “her word against his word” situation and I take it all with a big grain of salt on both their parts, but let’s say for a moment that this actually happened to you as I described above and that you are very upset and that you also take this as being fired and walk out thinking that you were just told not to return.
2) People should be able to quit any job they want at any time.
Yes they should. But in this case there is a question as to whether the employee voluntarily quit or was told they were being fired, not over actual job performance but for not sharing the employer’s religious or non-religious beliefs even if when she or you were hired, this was not a problem for either of them.
So why should the government get involved in any of this?
All employers have to pay into the unemployment insurance pool and agree to follow the rules when it comes to terminations and as to whether that termination qualifies for an unemployment claim or not. While I’ve seen many abuses of unemployment benefits and rulings that grant unemployment benefits to employees that don’t’ deserve them, rulings that I don’t agree with, benefits given to people who IMO don’t at all deserve them, the burden of proof always falls to the employer to prove that the termination was for cause or that the employee quit without any coercion or for an intolerable work place situation.
FWIW, I’ve also experienced the other side of this issue when I was terminated, was told I was being layed off from my payroll/office manager job because of a supposed “reduction of force”, i.e. a job elimination, that my job and I were no longer needed, but in truth, it was really because the owner wanted to give my job to his very inexperienced and unqualified and recent liberal arts college graduate daughter, and IMO that was his provocative and perfectly within his discretion to do so, but the one and the only time I ever filed for unemployment, this employer then lied and disputed my unemployment claim by saying that I was really terminated because of my “poor job performance”. I had liked and was very happy at my job and they had been very happy with me and I did a very good job but was suddenly let go and as I shortly found out from some co-workers, it really because the owner wanted to give his daughter my job and what a lousy job she was doing to boot. Again, that was perfectly within his right to do so, but not to then lie to me and to the unemployment commission about why I was actually let go and try to deny my unemployment claim.
I of course had signed copies of all my performance reviews of the years, including the one from just one month prior to my termination that stated what an excellent employee I was in and in all sorts of glowing terms on my excellent performance and with a very recent 6% pay increase. The employer also had no written proof of any written policy violations on my part or any written record of conversation of my alleged poor performance or that my job had actually been eliminated. He tried to claim that the job of “Office Manager”, my job had been eliminated but when during the unemployment hearing, he was asked to provide the written job description for his daughter’s job, now titled as “Office Administrator”, but the job description was exactly identitical to my job description except for a much higher rate of pay, 100% employer provided benefits and 6 weeks of vacation rather than my 50% benefits and 2 weeks of vacation. FWIW, he also tried to dispute my rights to COBRA benefits, trying to say I was fired for “gross misconduct” although he had no basis for this claim.
Fortunately I had a very strong resume and many solid references including that of my direct manager of this job I was let go from and found a new job rather quickly and only needed and got about 2 weeks of unemployment.
Even in states with “at will employment”, when an employer hires someone and the employee meets all the terms of and conditions of employment, if they are fired without cause, they still may have a valid claim for unemployment benefits.
In this case, I don’t really see where this employer had a solid case for dismissal for cause and for denial of unemployment benefits. FWIW, having a personal disagreement with an employee’s “personal life style choices” as long as it has no effect on their actual job performance, while the employer may choose to dismiss them and that may be within their right to do so, it has in reality, no bearing what so ever on whether the employee is eligible for unemployment benefits or not.
The government got involved because she filed for unemployment, which usually gets denied if you quit, but if you can establish that the workplace was hostile and you “needed” to quit gets undenied.