Posted on 08/31/2005 7:01:36 AM PDT by ZGuy
A computer technician in California has filed a lawsuit against his employer after being reprimanded for expressing his support for traditional marriage at work.
The employee at a private Orange County company works at an office where co-workers are allowed to have personal, religious and political messages in their cubicles. But when he placed a bumper sticker supporting traditional marriage in his own cubicle, his supervisor ordered him to remove it. The worker removed the sticker but was still demoted and reprimanded.
Realizing he was being treated illegally, the employee contacted Pacific Justice Institute, a legal organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. PJI attempted to resolve the matter peacefully, first contacting and informing the employer that its actions were in violation of state and federal law. However, the California company refused to change its position and continues to ban the employee's pro-marriage message.
As a result, PJI joined with affiliate attorney Laurie Messerly in filing a federal lawsuit on the employee's behalf. Commenting on the new suit, Messerly said it is "appalling that some employers think they can silence workers based solely on their viewpoint." However, she says she is confident "the justice system will right the wrongs done to this employee."
Attorney and PJI president Brad Dacus says the First Amendment prohibits employers from discriminating against a worker based on his or her personal, political, or religious viewpoints. "We commend this employee for taking a stand for traditional marriage," he says, "and we are committed to standing with him in federal court."
Dacus goes on to explain that the law "basically says when employees are allowed to post personal material expressing their opinions and perspectives on different issues in their own private work cubicle, and it doesn't impact or impair or create a hardship on the employer, then the employer must not discriminate or harass employees because of their beliefs and convictions that are exhibited in their private cubicle."
Since other employees at the Orange County firm were permitted to have personal, religious and even political messages in their cubicles, the PJI president contends that it constitutes a violation of the client's free-speech rights for his employer to bar him from doing the same. No workers "should ever have to deal with such outright intolerance, hostility, and tyranny by a manager or supervisor who has a chip on their shoulder" about the institution of marriage, the lawyer says.
Dacus insists that the California company's worker and others like him should not be forced to face unlawful discrimination "simply because they believe in the institution of marriage and support the institution of marriage." In the suit, the Orange County employee is asking for unspecified damages and a return to his former position.
This is a strange article. The employer isn't even named. This almost looks like an article written for fund raising purposes.
"No, he didn't. Like most attorneys he understands that the First Amendment means what judicial interpretations say it means and this emcompasses much more than the words on the page."
I sure hope your kidding.
we've not heard anything from the company involved, we don't know what the bumper sticker actually said, that kind of stuff.
clearly there are some details missing.
commenting on the story is fine, it's what we do around here. my comments revolve around the notion that you have taken as gospel what this very short story reveals.
So a Christian bookstore, for example, that lets employees wear buttons with various Christian messages, must allow employees to wear buttons that say, "Up with atheism", or "Nietsche was right"? You're probably right that a court would enforce exactly that, but it's a sad, sad loss of freedom in our country. If I want to start a company and, being my private property, hire only people that agree with my religious and political views, that should be my right.
He was not fired, but he was still demoted solely for his political views and without warning and when other employees were allowed to express their views. The employer in this case is going to get in trouble.
That is an extremely clear and articulated defense of fascism. You've clearly thought about this.
"I sure hope your kidding."
No.
This is the quote and your response:
"Attorney and PJI president Brad Dacus says the First Amendment prohibits employers from discriminating against a worker based on his or her personal, political, or religious viewpoints"
THe First Amendment says nada about "personal and politcal" viewpoints in the workplace. Did this guy get his law degree by mail order?
The fact that the First Amendment says "nada" about personal and political viewpoints in the workplace does not necessarily mean that those issues are not encompassed within it, and your flip comment about the attorney getting his law degree by mail order was unwarranted.
The First Amendment also says nothing about time, place and manner restrictions, nothing about incitement to imminent danger, nothing about validly enacted laws of general applicability affecting religious practices, etc. Yet all of those concepts are understood to be within the outlines of the First Amendment.
So what's your point?
You could be right----on the other hand! What if the supervisor was looking for a chance to chastise the employee for nothing other than he wasn't liked. What if the supervisor was confrontational--maybe even a confrontational homosexual or fellow traveler?
Believe me, in nearly every workplace there are people in authority who use their bit of power to play favorites.
vaudine
I wrote: "But their business is able to operate because of a system of public enforcement of contracts through the courts, and public protection of property and rights through the police forces. The system of law is what allows commerce to function so well in America, and allows the employer to operate secure in his possessions in the first place. The employer did not create that system of law, the people did. And the people have the right to regulate that which benefits from the system of laws."
You responded: "That is an extremely clear and articulated defense of fascism. You've clearly thought about this."
I respond: No, it is an extremely clear an articulated defense of the traditional understanding of the primacy of the rule of law in our democratic republic.
Employers are not free agents, able to do whatever they please in all circumstances.
And private property rights are not so absolute that one can do illegal things on private property.
They never, ever have been. There have been laws limiting employers and limiting private property rights for as long as there has been a Common Law.
Fascism has nothing to do with it.
That's my point. Office politics probably had more to do with the motivation behind this than what the bumber sticker said.
I wouldn't want this attorney arguing my case. There may be discrimination laws that apply here, but the First Amendment has nothing to do with this case. If he tries to argue this based on the First Amendment, he will be laughed out of court. Argue based on federal laws against discrimination based on religious views or whatever, but let's not further distort the First Amendment by trying to apply it where it doesn't apply.
Not for long?
what do you mean by that?
You argue that because the government (which you call, cutely enough, "the people") facilitates markets, it has a right to impose any regulations it wishes on participants in the markets. "Government control of the markets" is the definition of fascism. You have articulately argued that because the government giveth (which is false), therefore the government has the right to taketh away.
Employers are not free agents, able to do whatever they please in all circumstances.
...because the government owns my private property, to the extent that they can tell me how to use it. So much for freedom of association. Sieg hiel.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be obscure.
Another poster asked if it would be OK if an owner fired a person because of their ethnicity.
You responded that it would be OK because it was their business.
I responded "not for long."
By that I meant that the owner would be sued and perhaps would lose the business. It was a joke answer but the message was serious.
You may think that in an ideal world an employer can fire on whatever basis he wants, including race. In the real world, that is illegal discrimination and the owner will be sued and will lose. The only question is the amount of the damages.
You may be right, however, asking an employee to remove such messages is one thing, demotion or termination..........that's quite another. If free speech is allowed, it's allowed, if it's not, it's not.
I understand the real world. That does not make it right. We are supposed to be free to associate as we desire. Free to run our own affairs. How is this free? I know, I know, it's not allowed. That does not make it right.
I've read the story as written at Agape's website as well as at Pacific Institute's site.
The problem is not what the article clearly states (which isn't much), but it is interesting to note what is missing.
The who is missing (both the company and the employee)
the what is missing (what did the bumper sticker say)
the why is missing (why did the employee get demoted - we have only one side's response to that)
The where is present (it's in California)
The when is assumed (as in it happened recently)
This article fails to provide sufficient information on which to base a conclusion one way or the other, and the information that is provided is definitely spun in favor of the "aggrieved" party.
How about "What did the bumper sticker actually say?"
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.