What are the limits of religious freedom in the workplace?Religious Freedom, Housing, and ApostasyIs This Workplace Discrimination? What should I do about it?Is “mobbing” recognized by British and American legislations as a form of harassment in the workplace?What are the rules on businesses that wish to only hire attractive females?The differences : 'industry' includes establishment, undertaking, work, trade, business and any other workplace;What are the limits on categorising someone's statements as 'hatred' in regard to freedom of speech?What limits are there to the powers of individual judges in the United States legal system?Can an employer require attendance at a holiday party over the employee's religious objections?Are employers liable for employee safety if the workplace is declared a “gun free” zone?In the United States, is Freedom of the Press absolute, or are there limits on it?
Washing the skin of a dead rat
How can infinite information be theoretically encoded or stored in a single qubit?
pgf, tikz, circuitikz: define a new component
How to Keep Winged People Where They Belong?
Implement batch option --yes in bash script
Body swap, then building it back to health
Why is Google's quantum supremacy experiment impressive?
How is this character useful as an ally in Curse of Strahd?
What is the equivalent of "if you say so" in German?
How likely are you to be injured by falling shot from a game shoot?
30 fake coins out of 99 coins v2
Did Catherine the Great really call for the abolition of serfdom?
Cheat at Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock
What is the difference between money and currency?
On how/if I should ask my supervisor about lead authorship?
Does cashing a 3% share harm the company itself?
Is the MCU origin for the "Avengers” name consistent with the comics?
Drying clothes: windy but cold outside vs warm(ish) inside?
What is Trump's position on the whistle blower allegations? What does he mean by "witch hunt"?
Help with formulating an implication
MOS 8502, just a 6510B?
How do I reconnect with a friend after they tried once and I failed to respond
Jamaican expired passport
Can I say: “The train departs at 16 past every hour“?
What are the limits of religious freedom in the workplace?
Religious Freedom, Housing, and ApostasyIs This Workplace Discrimination? What should I do about it?Is “mobbing” recognized by British and American legislations as a form of harassment in the workplace?What are the rules on businesses that wish to only hire attractive females?The differences : 'industry' includes establishment, undertaking, work, trade, business and any other workplace;What are the limits on categorising someone's statements as 'hatred' in regard to freedom of speech?What limits are there to the powers of individual judges in the United States legal system?Can an employer require attendance at a holiday party over the employee's religious objections?Are employers liable for employee safety if the workplace is declared a “gun free” zone?In the United States, is Freedom of the Press absolute, or are there limits on it?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
Federally in the US, only race, sex, and religion are protected classes, i.e. it's illegal to make employment decisions (hiring/firing/salary/promotion/etc.) on the basis of a worker's race, sex, or religion.
Let's say that I have a Christian employee, Joe, who verbally harasses a gay employee, Steve. Joe is confronted by management or HR about his behavior, but he defends himself by saying that he is a devout Christian and he is only attempting to save Steve's soul. (For the record, while I personally am a Christian, I don't think the workplace is the right place for these conversations.)
What could the company do? Could they reprimand, or even fire, Joe for his harassment of Steve? Or would the company be required by federal law to keep Joe on staff even when he harasses other workers?
I can think of an example involving only religion as well. If I saw another employee wearing a Satanic symbol I would be very offended. But Satanists have religious freedom too and are also protected by federal law. So who wins?
united-states employment discrimination workplace wisconsin
asked Oct 14 at 1:51
Max A.Max A.
2131 silver badge5 bronze badges
|
show 1 more comment
Federally in the US, only race, sex, and religion are protected classes, i.e. it's illegal to make employment decisions (hiring/firing/salary/promotion/etc.) on the basis of a worker's race, sex, or religion.
Let's say that I have a Christian employee, Joe, who verbally harasses a gay employee, Steve. Joe is confronted by management or HR about his behavior, but he defends himself by saying that he is a devout Christian and he is only attempting to save Steve's soul. (For the record, while I personally am a Christian, I don't think the workplace is the right place for these conversations.)
What could the company do? Could they reprimand, or even fire, Joe for his harassment of Steve? Or would the company be required by federal law to keep Joe on staff even when he harasses other workers?
I can think of an example involving only religion as well. If I saw another employee wearing a Satanic symbol I would be very offended. But Satanists have religious freedom too and are also protected by federal law. So who wins?
united-states employment discrimination workplace wisconsin
asked Oct 14 at 1:51
Max A.Max A.
2131 silver badge5 bronze badges
2
From the eeoc website the federal protect classes are Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
– George White
Oct 14 at 4:22
24
I don't think "verbally abusive" falls under "saving one's soul". You can and should ignore religion here and look at this as general behaviour.
– VLAZ
Oct 14 at 11:21
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– feetwet♦
Oct 15 at 16:15
@VLAZ I agree, to an extent. It's a fine line, though. Personally, I would consider it verbally abusive to threaten an employee with eternal damnation or with going to Hell, but I know many Christians who would consider that normal speech and not verbal abuse.
– Max A.
Oct 17 at 1:32
1
Might be being challenged in court but still illegal today. According to the eeoc web site eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm there is a specific act regarding . Pregnancy Discrimination & Work Situations "The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, . . . and any other term or condition of employment." the Wikipedia on PDA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act
– George White
Oct 17 at 2:48
|
show 1 more comment
Federally in the US, only race, sex, and religion are protected classes, i.e. it's illegal to make employment decisions (hiring/firing/salary/promotion/etc.) on the basis of a worker's race, sex, or religion.
Let's say that I have a Christian employee, Joe, who verbally harasses a gay employee, Steve. Joe is confronted by management or HR about his behavior, but he defends himself by saying that he is a devout Christian and he is only attempting to save Steve's soul. (For the record, while I personally am a Christian, I don't think the workplace is the right place for these conversations.)
What could the company do? Could they reprimand, or even fire, Joe for his harassment of Steve? Or would the company be required by federal law to keep Joe on staff even when he harasses other workers?
I can think of an example involving only religion as well. If I saw another employee wearing a Satanic symbol I would be very offended. But Satanists have religious freedom too and are also protected by federal law. So who wins?
united-states employment discrimination workplace wisconsin
asked Oct 14 at 1:51
Max A.Max A.
2131 silver badge5 bronze badges
Federally in the US, only race, sex, and religion are protected classes, i.e. it's illegal to make employment decisions (hiring/firing/salary/promotion/etc.) on the basis of a worker's race, sex, or religion.
Let's say that I have a Christian employee, Joe, who verbally harasses a gay employee, Steve. Joe is confronted by management or HR about his behavior, but he defends himself by saying that he is a devout Christian and he is only attempting to save Steve's soul. (For the record, while I personally am a Christian, I don't think the workplace is the right place for these conversations.)
What could the company do? Could they reprimand, or even fire, Joe for his harassment of Steve? Or would the company be required by federal law to keep Joe on staff even when he harasses other workers?
I can think of an example involving only religion as well. If I saw another employee wearing a Satanic symbol I would be very offended. But Satanists have religious freedom too and are also protected by federal law. So who wins?
united-states employment discrimination workplace wisconsin
united-states employment discrimination workplace wisconsin
asked Oct 14 at 1:51
Max A.Max A.
2131 silver badge5 bronze badges
asked Oct 14 at 1:51
Max A.Max A.
2131 silver badge5 bronze badges
asked Oct 14 at 1:51
Max A.Max A.
2131 silver badge5 bronze badges
asked Oct 14 at 1:51
Max A.Max A.
2131 silver badge5 bronze badges
asked Oct 14 at 1:51
Max A.Max A.
2131 silver badge5 bronze badges
2131 silver badge5 bronze badges
2
From the eeoc website the federal protect classes are Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
– George White
Oct 14 at 4:22
24
I don't think "verbally abusive" falls under "saving one's soul". You can and should ignore religion here and look at this as general behaviour.
– VLAZ
Oct 14 at 11:21
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– feetwet♦
Oct 15 at 16:15
@VLAZ I agree, to an extent. It's a fine line, though. Personally, I would consider it verbally abusive to threaten an employee with eternal damnation or with going to Hell, but I know many Christians who would consider that normal speech and not verbal abuse.
– Max A.
Oct 17 at 1:32
1
Might be being challenged in court but still illegal today. According to the eeoc web site eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm there is a specific act regarding . Pregnancy Discrimination & Work Situations "The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, . . . and any other term or condition of employment." the Wikipedia on PDA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act
– George White
Oct 17 at 2:48
|
show 1 more comment
2
From the eeoc website the federal protect classes are Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
– George White
Oct 14 at 4:22
24
I don't think "verbally abusive" falls under "saving one's soul". You can and should ignore religion here and look at this as general behaviour.
– VLAZ
Oct 14 at 11:21
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– feetwet♦
Oct 15 at 16:15
@VLAZ I agree, to an extent. It's a fine line, though. Personally, I would consider it verbally abusive to threaten an employee with eternal damnation or with going to Hell, but I know many Christians who would consider that normal speech and not verbal abuse.
– Max A.
Oct 17 at 1:32
1
Might be being challenged in court but still illegal today. According to the eeoc web site eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm there is a specific act regarding . Pregnancy Discrimination & Work Situations "The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, . . . and any other term or condition of employment." the Wikipedia on PDA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act
– George White
Oct 17 at 2:48
2
2
From the eeoc website the federal protect classes are Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
– George White
Oct 14 at 4:22
From the eeoc website the federal protect classes are Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
– George White
Oct 14 at 4:22
24
24
I don't think "verbally abusive" falls under "saving one's soul". You can and should ignore religion here and look at this as general behaviour.
– VLAZ
Oct 14 at 11:21
I don't think "verbally abusive" falls under "saving one's soul". You can and should ignore religion here and look at this as general behaviour.
– VLAZ
Oct 14 at 11:21
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– feetwet♦
Oct 15 at 16:15
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– feetwet♦
Oct 15 at 16:15
@VLAZ I agree, to an extent. It's a fine line, though. Personally, I would consider it verbally abusive to threaten an employee with eternal damnation or with going to Hell, but I know many Christians who would consider that normal speech and not verbal abuse.
– Max A.
Oct 17 at 1:32
@VLAZ I agree, to an extent. It's a fine line, though. Personally, I would consider it verbally abusive to threaten an employee with eternal damnation or with going to Hell, but I know many Christians who would consider that normal speech and not verbal abuse.
– Max A.
Oct 17 at 1:32
1
1
Might be being challenged in court but still illegal today. According to the eeoc web site eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm there is a specific act regarding . Pregnancy Discrimination & Work Situations "The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, . . . and any other term or condition of employment." the Wikipedia on PDA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act
– George White
Oct 17 at 2:48
Might be being challenged in court but still illegal today. According to the eeoc web site eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm there is a specific act regarding . Pregnancy Discrimination & Work Situations "The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, . . . and any other term or condition of employment." the Wikipedia on PDA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act
– George White
Oct 17 at 2:48
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The EEOC web site has much information on this topic including summaries of close cases that have been decided in court.
To determine whether allowing or continuing to permit an employee to pray, proselytize, or engage in other forms of religiously oriented expression in the workplace would pose an undue hardship, employers should consider the potential disruption, if any, that will be posed by permitting this expression of religious belief.[196] As explained below, relevant considerations may include the effect such expression has had, or can reasonably be expected to have, if permitted to continue, on co-workers, customers, or business operations.
a. Effect on Workplace Rights of Co-Workers
Expression can create undue hardship if it disrupts the work of other
employees or constitutes – or threatens to constitute – unlawful
harassment. Since an employer has a duty under Title VII to protect
employees from religious harassment, it would be an undue hardship to
accommodate such expression. As explained in § III-A-2-b of this
document, religious expression directed toward co-workers might
constitute harassment in some situations, for example where it is
facially abusive (i.e., demeans people of other religions), or where,
even if not abusive, it persists even though the co-workers to whom it
is directed have made clear that it is unwelcome. It is necessary to
make a case-by-case determination regarding whether the effect on
co-workers actually is an undue hardship. However, this does not
require waiting until the alleged harassment has become severe or
pervasive.[197] As with harassment on any basis, it is permitted and
advisable for employers to take action to stop alleged harassment
before it becomes severe or pervasive, because while isolated
incidents of harassment generally do not violate federal law, a
pattern of such incidents may be unlawful.[198]
answered Oct 14 at 4:40
George WhiteGeorge White
1,6506 silver badges18 bronze badges
8
+1. In short, you can not fire him for being christian. That doesn't mean that you can't fire him for what he says (specifically to other people). Would you tolerate the same behavior coming from a muslim trying to convert you ? Or an atheist harassing a christian ?
– xyious
Oct 14 at 20:22
15
++; Harassment is harassment, "reasons" for doing so aren't ever relevant.
– Delioth
Oct 14 at 21:45
8
Actually, it looks like U.S. law treats harassment due to religion separately/more strongly than generic harassment. "Since an employer has a duty under Title VII to protect employees from religious harassment,"
– George White
Oct 14 at 22:05
2
Also I'm pretty sure Steve has the right to believe that him being gay is not a sin and he should not be harassed because of that. Freedom of religion usually includes the freedom not to be religious.
– PatJ
Oct 15 at 12:35
1
So it sounds like the first example is something that the employer could and should put a stop to. However I don't see anything here which would justify taking action against the person wearing a satanic symbol, since they're not directing their expression at anyone. Although perhaps you could get away with banning all religious symbols if it's causing strife in the workplace. Is that an accurate interpretation?
– Kat
Oct 15 at 18:07
|
show 9 more comments
protected by feetwet♦ Oct 15 at 16:14
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The EEOC web site has much information on this topic including summaries of close cases that have been decided in court.
To determine whether allowing or continuing to permit an employee to pray, proselytize, or engage in other forms of religiously oriented expression in the workplace would pose an undue hardship, employers should consider the potential disruption, if any, that will be posed by permitting this expression of religious belief.[196] As explained below, relevant considerations may include the effect such expression has had, or can reasonably be expected to have, if permitted to continue, on co-workers, customers, or business operations.
a. Effect on Workplace Rights of Co-Workers
Expression can create undue hardship if it disrupts the work of other
employees or constitutes – or threatens to constitute – unlawful
harassment. Since an employer has a duty under Title VII to protect
employees from religious harassment, it would be an undue hardship to
accommodate such expression. As explained in § III-A-2-b of this
document, religious expression directed toward co-workers might
constitute harassment in some situations, for example where it is
facially abusive (i.e., demeans people of other religions), or where,
even if not abusive, it persists even though the co-workers to whom it
is directed have made clear that it is unwelcome. It is necessary to
make a case-by-case determination regarding whether the effect on
co-workers actually is an undue hardship. However, this does not
require waiting until the alleged harassment has become severe or
pervasive.[197] As with harassment on any basis, it is permitted and
advisable for employers to take action to stop alleged harassment
before it becomes severe or pervasive, because while isolated
incidents of harassment generally do not violate federal law, a
pattern of such incidents may be unlawful.[198]
answered Oct 14 at 4:40
George WhiteGeorge White
1,6506 silver badges18 bronze badges
8
+1. In short, you can not fire him for being christian. That doesn't mean that you can't fire him for what he says (specifically to other people). Would you tolerate the same behavior coming from a muslim trying to convert you ? Or an atheist harassing a christian ?
– xyious
Oct 14 at 20:22
15
++; Harassment is harassment, "reasons" for doing so aren't ever relevant.
– Delioth
Oct 14 at 21:45
8
Actually, it looks like U.S. law treats harassment due to religion separately/more strongly than generic harassment. "Since an employer has a duty under Title VII to protect employees from religious harassment,"
– George White
Oct 14 at 22:05
2
Also I'm pretty sure Steve has the right to believe that him being gay is not a sin and he should not be harassed because of that. Freedom of religion usually includes the freedom not to be religious.
– PatJ
Oct 15 at 12:35
1
So it sounds like the first example is something that the employer could and should put a stop to. However I don't see anything here which would justify taking action against the person wearing a satanic symbol, since they're not directing their expression at anyone. Although perhaps you could get away with banning all religious symbols if it's causing strife in the workplace. Is that an accurate interpretation?
– Kat
Oct 15 at 18:07
|
show 9 more comments
The EEOC web site has much information on this topic including summaries of close cases that have been decided in court.
To determine whether allowing or continuing to permit an employee to pray, proselytize, or engage in other forms of religiously oriented expression in the workplace would pose an undue hardship, employers should consider the potential disruption, if any, that will be posed by permitting this expression of religious belief.[196] As explained below, relevant considerations may include the effect such expression has had, or can reasonably be expected to have, if permitted to continue, on co-workers, customers, or business operations.
a. Effect on Workplace Rights of Co-Workers
Expression can create undue hardship if it disrupts the work of other
employees or constitutes – or threatens to constitute – unlawful
harassment. Since an employer has a duty under Title VII to protect
employees from religious harassment, it would be an undue hardship to
accommodate such expression. As explained in § III-A-2-b of this
document, religious expression directed toward co-workers might
constitute harassment in some situations, for example where it is
facially abusive (i.e., demeans people of other religions), or where,
even if not abusive, it persists even though the co-workers to whom it
is directed have made clear that it is unwelcome. It is necessary to
make a case-by-case determination regarding whether the effect on
co-workers actually is an undue hardship. However, this does not
require waiting until the alleged harassment has become severe or
pervasive.[197] As with harassment on any basis, it is permitted and
advisable for employers to take action to stop alleged harassment
before it becomes severe or pervasive, because while isolated
incidents of harassment generally do not violate federal law, a
pattern of such incidents may be unlawful.[198]
answered Oct 14 at 4:40
George WhiteGeorge White
1,6506 silver badges18 bronze badges
8
+1. In short, you can not fire him for being christian. That doesn't mean that you can't fire him for what he says (specifically to other people). Would you tolerate the same behavior coming from a muslim trying to convert you ? Or an atheist harassing a christian ?
– xyious
Oct 14 at 20:22
15
++; Harassment is harassment, "reasons" for doing so aren't ever relevant.
– Delioth
Oct 14 at 21:45
8
Actually, it looks like U.S. law treats harassment due to religion separately/more strongly than generic harassment. "Since an employer has a duty under Title VII to protect employees from religious harassment,"
– George White
Oct 14 at 22:05
2
Also I'm pretty sure Steve has the right to believe that him being gay is not a sin and he should not be harassed because of that. Freedom of religion usually includes the freedom not to be religious.
– PatJ
Oct 15 at 12:35
1
So it sounds like the first example is something that the employer could and should put a stop to. However I don't see anything here which would justify taking action against the person wearing a satanic symbol, since they're not directing their expression at anyone. Although perhaps you could get away with banning all religious symbols if it's causing strife in the workplace. Is that an accurate interpretation?
– Kat
Oct 15 at 18:07
|
show 9 more comments
The EEOC web site has much information on this topic including summaries of close cases that have been decided in court.
To determine whether allowing or continuing to permit an employee to pray, proselytize, or engage in other forms of religiously oriented expression in the workplace would pose an undue hardship, employers should consider the potential disruption, if any, that will be posed by permitting this expression of religious belief.[196] As explained below, relevant considerations may include the effect such expression has had, or can reasonably be expected to have, if permitted to continue, on co-workers, customers, or business operations.
a. Effect on Workplace Rights of Co-Workers
Expression can create undue hardship if it disrupts the work of other
employees or constitutes – or threatens to constitute – unlawful
harassment. Since an employer has a duty under Title VII to protect
employees from religious harassment, it would be an undue hardship to
accommodate such expression. As explained in § III-A-2-b of this
document, religious expression directed toward co-workers might
constitute harassment in some situations, for example where it is
facially abusive (i.e., demeans people of other religions), or where,
even if not abusive, it persists even though the co-workers to whom it
is directed have made clear that it is unwelcome. It is necessary to
make a case-by-case determination regarding whether the effect on
co-workers actually is an undue hardship. However, this does not
require waiting until the alleged harassment has become severe or
pervasive.[197] As with harassment on any basis, it is permitted and
advisable for employers to take action to stop alleged harassment
before it becomes severe or pervasive, because while isolated
incidents of harassment generally do not violate federal law, a
pattern of such incidents may be unlawful.[198]
answered Oct 14 at 4:40
George WhiteGeorge White
1,6506 silver badges18 bronze badges
The EEOC web site has much information on this topic including summaries of close cases that have been decided in court.
To determine whether allowing or continuing to permit an employee to pray, proselytize, or engage in other forms of religiously oriented expression in the workplace would pose an undue hardship, employers should consider the potential disruption, if any, that will be posed by permitting this expression of religious belief.[196] As explained below, relevant considerations may include the effect such expression has had, or can reasonably be expected to have, if permitted to continue, on co-workers, customers, or business operations.
a. Effect on Workplace Rights of Co-Workers
Expression can create undue hardship if it disrupts the work of other
employees or constitutes – or threatens to constitute – unlawful
harassment. Since an employer has a duty under Title VII to protect
employees from religious harassment, it would be an undue hardship to
accommodate such expression. As explained in § III-A-2-b of this
document, religious expression directed toward co-workers might
constitute harassment in some situations, for example where it is
facially abusive (i.e., demeans people of other religions), or where,
even if not abusive, it persists even though the co-workers to whom it
is directed have made clear that it is unwelcome. It is necessary to
make a case-by-case determination regarding whether the effect on
co-workers actually is an undue hardship. However, this does not
require waiting until the alleged harassment has become severe or
pervasive.[197] As with harassment on any basis, it is permitted and
advisable for employers to take action to stop alleged harassment
before it becomes severe or pervasive, because while isolated
incidents of harassment generally do not violate federal law, a
pattern of such incidents may be unlawful.[198]
answered Oct 14 at 4:40
George WhiteGeorge White
1,6506 silver badges18 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 4:40
George WhiteGeorge White
1,6506 silver badges18 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 4:40
George WhiteGeorge White
1,6506 silver badges18 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 4:40
George WhiteGeorge White
1,6506 silver badges18 bronze badges
1,6506 silver badges18 bronze badges
8
+1. In short, you can not fire him for being christian. That doesn't mean that you can't fire him for what he says (specifically to other people). Would you tolerate the same behavior coming from a muslim trying to convert you ? Or an atheist harassing a christian ?
– xyious
Oct 14 at 20:22
15
++; Harassment is harassment, "reasons" for doing so aren't ever relevant.
– Delioth
Oct 14 at 21:45
8
Actually, it looks like U.S. law treats harassment due to religion separately/more strongly than generic harassment. "Since an employer has a duty under Title VII to protect employees from religious harassment,"
– George White
Oct 14 at 22:05
2
Also I'm pretty sure Steve has the right to believe that him being gay is not a sin and he should not be harassed because of that. Freedom of religion usually includes the freedom not to be religious.
– PatJ
Oct 15 at 12:35
1
So it sounds like the first example is something that the employer could and should put a stop to. However I don't see anything here which would justify taking action against the person wearing a satanic symbol, since they're not directing their expression at anyone. Although perhaps you could get away with banning all religious symbols if it's causing strife in the workplace. Is that an accurate interpretation?
– Kat
Oct 15 at 18:07
|
show 9 more comments
8
+1. In short, you can not fire him for being christian. That doesn't mean that you can't fire him for what he says (specifically to other people). Would you tolerate the same behavior coming from a muslim trying to convert you ? Or an atheist harassing a christian ?
– xyious
Oct 14 at 20:22
15
++; Harassment is harassment, "reasons" for doing so aren't ever relevant.
– Delioth
Oct 14 at 21:45
8
Actually, it looks like U.S. law treats harassment due to religion separately/more strongly than generic harassment. "Since an employer has a duty under Title VII to protect employees from religious harassment,"
– George White
Oct 14 at 22:05
2
Also I'm pretty sure Steve has the right to believe that him being gay is not a sin and he should not be harassed because of that. Freedom of religion usually includes the freedom not to be religious.
– PatJ
Oct 15 at 12:35
1
So it sounds like the first example is something that the employer could and should put a stop to. However I don't see anything here which would justify taking action against the person wearing a satanic symbol, since they're not directing their expression at anyone. Although perhaps you could get away with banning all religious symbols if it's causing strife in the workplace. Is that an accurate interpretation?
– Kat
Oct 15 at 18:07
8
8
+1. In short, you can not fire him for being christian. That doesn't mean that you can't fire him for what he says (specifically to other people). Would you tolerate the same behavior coming from a muslim trying to convert you ? Or an atheist harassing a christian ?
– xyious
Oct 14 at 20:22
+1. In short, you can not fire him for being christian. That doesn't mean that you can't fire him for what he says (specifically to other people). Would you tolerate the same behavior coming from a muslim trying to convert you ? Or an atheist harassing a christian ?
– xyious
Oct 14 at 20:22
15
15
++; Harassment is harassment, "reasons" for doing so aren't ever relevant.
– Delioth
Oct 14 at 21:45
++; Harassment is harassment, "reasons" for doing so aren't ever relevant.
– Delioth
Oct 14 at 21:45
8
8
Actually, it looks like U.S. law treats harassment due to religion separately/more strongly than generic harassment. "Since an employer has a duty under Title VII to protect employees from religious harassment,"
– George White
Oct 14 at 22:05
Actually, it looks like U.S. law treats harassment due to religion separately/more strongly than generic harassment. "Since an employer has a duty under Title VII to protect employees from religious harassment,"
– George White
Oct 14 at 22:05
2
2
Also I'm pretty sure Steve has the right to believe that him being gay is not a sin and he should not be harassed because of that. Freedom of religion usually includes the freedom not to be religious.
– PatJ
Oct 15 at 12:35
Also I'm pretty sure Steve has the right to believe that him being gay is not a sin and he should not be harassed because of that. Freedom of religion usually includes the freedom not to be religious.
– PatJ
Oct 15 at 12:35
1
1
So it sounds like the first example is something that the employer could and should put a stop to. However I don't see anything here which would justify taking action against the person wearing a satanic symbol, since they're not directing their expression at anyone. Although perhaps you could get away with banning all religious symbols if it's causing strife in the workplace. Is that an accurate interpretation?
– Kat
Oct 15 at 18:07
So it sounds like the first example is something that the employer could and should put a stop to. However I don't see anything here which would justify taking action against the person wearing a satanic symbol, since they're not directing their expression at anyone. Although perhaps you could get away with banning all religious symbols if it's causing strife in the workplace. Is that an accurate interpretation?
– Kat
Oct 15 at 18:07
|
show 9 more comments
protected by feetwet♦ Oct 15 at 16:14
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
2
From the eeoc website the federal protect classes are Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
– George White
Oct 14 at 4:22
24
I don't think "verbally abusive" falls under "saving one's soul". You can and should ignore religion here and look at this as general behaviour.
– VLAZ
Oct 14 at 11:21
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– feetwet♦
Oct 15 at 16:15
@VLAZ I agree, to an extent. It's a fine line, though. Personally, I would consider it verbally abusive to threaten an employee with eternal damnation or with going to Hell, but I know many Christians who would consider that normal speech and not verbal abuse.
– Max A.
Oct 17 at 1:32
1
Might be being challenged in court but still illegal today. According to the eeoc web site eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm there is a specific act regarding . Pregnancy Discrimination & Work Situations "The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, . . . and any other term or condition of employment." the Wikipedia on PDA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act
– George White
Oct 17 at 2:48