That said, it was an insanely stupid and costly thing to do, even if they do not get sued. Now Kodak is known as a company that values rigid dogma over a longtime employee with specialist skills. Just the kind of place I want to do business with - NOT.
Kodak would have been much better off taking this guy aside and saying "You are free to think that way, just keep it quiet at work." They should fire some morons at HR, too.
If I were to implement a policy that all employees would have to sign a paper that they agree with and have to abide by the teachings of the Old Testament of the Bible would I be within my rights??
I know your answer - the real question is why the religion of "no religion" is allowed special compensation.
You are probably right. However, the lawyer used unfortunate phrasing in defense of this point when he said
"If an employer goes a step further and promote diversity--you have no right to oppose that policy," Fusco said.
Read that again: the Labor lawyer (who let's face it is probably not sympathetic to the employee in this case) comes out with "you have no right to oppose that policy". No right to oppose a policy?
From a legal standpoint, this simply cannot be true. Of course, most likely it was just a Freudian slip by the lawyer, and the company's case rests on more solid ground than that.
Well, technically, any company is always within its rights to fire anyone. But, if a letter had been circulated that was offensive to gay people, or black people. I don't mean a personal issue just something which offended them, would it have been the same? Wasn't the employee within his rights to say, I am offended by this, much as a female would be if someone sent her a sexual offensive letter. I see no difference.
I, too, would have been offended, disgusted and insulted by this and I think the employer was wrong - dead wrong on this one.