[NukeMan]

I dunno...if Kodak is an 'at will' employer the guy probably has no case. He can be fired for any reason (excepting the usual race/religion/etc.), or no reason at all. I don't see his objections being covered under race/religion/gender exceptions. Caveat: I am not a lawyer!

[BlueLancer]

"Caveat: I am not a lawyer!"

But the real question is: But do you play one on TV?

[Hemlock]

He can be fired for any reason (excepting the usual race/religion/etc.), or no reason at all.

A good lawyer might be able to get Kodak on religious discrimination.

[BillSharp]

But aren't they firing him because of his religious beliefs or at least for expressing his religious/moral beliefs?

[IYAS9YAS]

IF Kodak IS an at-will organization, they need not give a reason...However, they did give a reason, and it does not fall within the guidlines of of the EEOC. He was fired for his stance on homosexuality (ergo his religion). I think this is where Kodak will lose.

[Bryan24]

NukeMan,

Mr.Solz was asked to proactively accept and, according to policy, actively work toward including people who are gay or lesbian.

I know that my religious beliefs would force me to essentially take the same stand that he did. I would not actively encourage any gays or lesbians to "come out", as that would violate my religious beliefs.

He was threatened with termination if he didn't act AGAINST his religious beliefs. I believe that is grounds for lawsuit for violation of his constitutional rights of religious freedom.