| 
|
Page: Profile: Wren's Nest News Local
| Total Views: 4,942,599
|
Article: 16949
[Civil]
Date Posted:
12/27/2006
9:07:15 am EST
Wvox Stats
Views: 7,338
RSS: 22,408
Comments: 11
|
Woman Gets $115,000 In Religion Bias Lawsuit
Author: Steve Doyle Source: Huntsville Times (AL)
Title: WOMAN GETS $115,000 IN RELIGION BIAS LAWSUIT
A federal jury has ordered a Huntsville medical practice to pay $115,000 to a former employee who claims that she was fired for refusing to discuss her feelings about God.
Carolyn S. Hall, 48, of Paint Rock sued Alabama Pain Center for religious discrimination under the federal Civil Rights Act in January. The trial was held last week in the federal court here.
Hall claims that Dr. Dean Willis, the clinic's owner, told her in late 2003 that he was concerned about her job performance because he did not know where she stood with God. Hall declined to talk with Willis about her religious views and was fired as office manager several weeks later, she testified.
| Options: [Read Full Story] [Comments Locked]
[Email to a Friend]
|
|
Community Thoughts: There are 11 comments posted | Reverse Sort |
| Religion In The Workplace | Dec 30th. at 1:01:44 am EST
|
nasionnaich (Stanchfield, Minnesota) - Email Me
We, as a Nation, should get our collective heads out of our a**es and STOP equating Religiouness with Employment Competence. A person is either qualified to do the job, or not. If the person's Religious Beliefs impede their ability to do the job -- i.e., they place their Religious Beliefs ahead of their continued employment (they preach when they should be working, they try to "improve" the day-to-day workplace practices using their own religious beliefs, they purposely go against published workplace practices because those practices are "Satanic", etc.) -- then that person should simply be fired.
To NOT hire someone simply they hold a religious view differing from that of the business owner or whoever does the hiring is against the law, no matter how many lawyers are hired to put a spin on it, as is requiring an employee to share the religious views of the owner/employer as a prerequisite of continued employment.
Let's face it folks, "Fairness" -- as well as every religious belief out there in the world, dictates that we practice what we preach.
----nasionnaich
|
| Faith Should Return To Being A Private Matter | Dec 29th. at 8:23:54 am EST
|
bigcat (peoria, Illinois) - Email Me
I feel that an employer should have rights only where his own business is concerned- and on his own grounds. And matters of faith should remain firmly at home--on both sides of the fence. The only time that anything different applies is if he is running a church organization An employee should not be fired because their faith-or lack of it clashes with their own. Only what he or she does on the job should matter. And forcing someone to discuss spiritual matters when they refuse is not a good reason for firing. neither is hiring merely to proselytize.
A person's faith -is or should not be a matter of public concern at all- unless it negatively impacts the public in a proven way.
|
| IF IT WAS ME.... | Dec 28th. at 5:02:50 am EST
|
Whitewolf (Schenectady, New York) - Email Me
I would have told them flat-out that I am Pagan and let them chew on THAT a bit!
Love to all & Happy New Year!
|
| An "At-Will" State | Dec 28th. at 12:36:14 am EST
|
Richard Brownbear (North Wilkesboro, North Carolina) - Email Me
North Carolina is one of those "At-Will" states, and if you get fired because of discrimination, it's dang near impossible to prove it.
If you tried to sue a workplace here in North Carolina because you were fired, justly or unjustly, it wouldn't even make it to court before being thrown out.
|
| This Is Why We Have To Have Civil Rights Laws | Dec 27th. at 5:06:27 pm EST
|
Lune Argentee (Hayward, California) - Email Me - Web
Many states are "at will" states. This means that an employer may hire and fire at will, and an employee may also choose to be hired or quit at any time.
However, it's been recognized that discrimination is not an acceptable reason for hiring and firing of employees. While much of this law is based on racial discrimination issues, it has come to be accepted and legislated that employers do not have the right to invade their employees' private lives. As long as their personal lives did not affect their professional lives, the employer does not have the right to pick and choose employees based on race, sex, creed, religion, etc.
While someone might prefer not to hire a fundie (I completely understand) were that person to prove that you discriminated against him for this reason it would be a problem. All you would have to do is show that the person could not work the hours required by the position or some other requirement that person was unable to meet due to private life commitments.
And I loved the episode of "Boston Legal" where the employer fired the Scientologist. It was shone that the employee had been discussing his religion with clients and possibly basing his opinions on his religion. In this case it's no longer discrimination.
Church-based organizations can, on occasion, discriminate, but that is only the case if their moneys do not include any government funds. Although there have been some changes allowing discrimination against employees by churches with the current federal government's faith-based initiatives, legal challenges are already arising, and will probably correct this church/state separation issue soon.
Laws are supposed to protect individuals rights against the comfort or desires of society or employers. And, whatever our feelings, those are the laws we must respect and support.
|
| Technical Law Again | Dec 27th. at 4:42:57 pm EST
|
Terry (Irvington, Virginia) - Email Me - Web
Who says Republicans don't join Democrats to support abortion? Surely, an abortion of civil rights was the intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It's far messier than this article presents as to statutory caps with various fine print, covering some forms of discrimination but not other similar ones, and so is arguably unConstitutional as to due process or equal protections, over types of issues our courts have often treated inconsistently as to legislative authority or violations of Constitutional standards.
$50,000 doesn't necessarily mean $50,000. If the compensatory damage claim had been made for past losses of income, plus medical costs including private replacement insurance, that would not be capped as future losses or non-monetary damages plus punitive damages are, for select types of similar civil rights claims only. Legal cost awards aren't capped, such that this suit could easily cost the malicious doctor 6 figures even if certain portions are capped at the small employer (less than 100 employee) level. Government is partially exempt from damages when it violates rights, bad law IMHO.
According to the applicable EEOC policy manual [Web LINK]
"Punitive damages are awarded to punish the respondent and to
deter future discriminatory conduct. They are not available
against a federal, state, or local government, a government
agency, or a political subdivision. Punitive damages are
available only where the respondent acted with "malice or with
reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an
aggrieved individual." Section 1981A (b) (1) ."
That's a harsh finding against a doctor, and could be grounds for a medical licensure ethics complaint. In some states, it could also support a felony labor law violation, though prosecution of that requires a state willing to put a rabid fundie in jail for a felony. Federal EEOC policy for handling cases is found in this manual: [Web LINK]
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce position on this law is found here:
[Web LINK]
This case reinforces the right to be free of other people's religions. While that's obvious in the cases of pagans or atheists around bible thumpers, it's interesting, albeit sadly perverse, to see how it also applies to people identifying as of the same nominal religion, but different interpretations or variants thereof.
The various nested conditions of these civil process statutes and related options reinforce the extent to which legal tactics can be as important as actual laws. The EEOC internal documents linked above and below also show how our legal system can leave a wronged party poked, prodded, and feeling disected in the course of litigation, and compelled disclosure and testimony about numerous otherwise private details. That's why Otto von Bismarck may have been closer than most school textbooks, in describing legal systems as comparable to making sausage, and not exactly bastions of equity or justice for all.
Find More info -- HERE
|
| $50,000 | Dec 27th. at 3:18:07 pm EST
|
Ahr-Ohn (Bridgeport, Connecticut) - Email Me
I hope it's picked up by Insurance, as it'll skyrocket the Premiums.
"In court filings, Arnston argued that Hall was terminated for poor job performance.
Hall was hired by the clinic as an insurance specialist in July 2002 but was quickly promoted to insurance supervisor and then office manager, Saxon said. At the time of her firing in February 2004, she was making about $37,000 a year, he said. "
She was promoted, perhaps to the level of her inadequacy, but in conflict with being dismissed for poor job performance.
Healling is a Religious Practice, in Gospel and Gita, and should be respected as such, and this Physician seems to be hiring and firing according to how good a preacher he is. If he's going to organize a Church of Pain Management, he should call it such, and a weekly dinner of Stress Relief would not be out of line. Trying to renegotiate the Employment Contract, to determine options of Worship, should not be done, but done honestly. Denigrating an employee as "Poor Job Performance," when it's really "Employer Whimsy," is dishonest, and the Gods of Christendom are not pleased.
Too bad the Civil Rights Cap is only $50,000, but if Fraud or other Multiple Felonies can be proven, perhaps RICO can come into play. Half her legal expenses seems a bit slight.
Pain Management is an important ministry... I wonder if I could offer them a clue?
Arawn
|
| This Is A Tough One For Me ! | Dec 27th. at 12:08:49 pm EST
|
Libertarian (Langley, Washington) - Email Me - Web
I am in sympathy with the employee but have to stick with principal on this one. I have been both a business owner and an employee and as a business owner I hold it as a right to hire and fire as I see fit.. For example, I wouldn't want a fundie working for me because I would be concerned that the fundie wouldn't be looking out for my best interests. I used to live near a big christian organization that was looking for people to drive vans on a part time basis. The job would have been perfect for me but I was not even allowed to apply as a consequence of my not being a member of a church that met with their approval. In the best of worlds a persons faith shouldn't make a difference, only their abilities and job performance should count. We don't live in that world and a persons belief system does impact the jobs that they do. I am however happy for the women and hope that the owner of that business gets his head out of a very dark place.
|
| A Very Real Problem... | Dec 27th. at 10:34:34 am EST
|
) 0 ( (Montgomery, Florida) - Email Me
Religious discrimination on the job is a growing problem. I started to discover Wicca in 1994 when I wandered into a pagan store. By '95, my interest peaked.
I wore a small pentagram as a pendant and an onyx pentacle as a ring. I worked for Christian fundamentalists, who were actually okay people and appreciated my hard work. However, many of the employees labeled me as a person who worshipped the 'devil' although they would never say it to my face.
As a result, I did not wear the pentagram for many years on any job due to fear of recrimination. I have one now that I enjoy wearing but have been wearing my amethyst pendant lately due to some stress I am dealing with at this time. The boss I have says we all have freedom of expression as long as we come to work in proper uniform.
|
Disclaimer: The Witches' Voice inc does not verify the accuracy of the details stated in this listing, nor do we vouch for the value of the goods or services presented here... As with all contacts and financial dealings in cyberspace, we encourage you to use caution and wisdom in your dealings with strangers.
Political Statements: Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren's Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches' Voice, Inc. TWV is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization.
|
State/Country flags created by 3dflags.com and are used with permission
Web Site Content (including: text - graphics - html - look & feel)
Copyright 1997-2009 The Witches' Voice Inc. All rights reserved
Note: Authors & Artists retain the copyright for their work(s) on this website.
Unauthorized reproduction without prior permission is a violation of copyright laws.
Website structure, evolution and php coding by Fritz Jung on a Macintosh G5.
Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren’s Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches’ Voice, Inc. TWV is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization.
Sponsorship: Visit the Witches' Voice Sponsor Page for info on how you
can help support this Community Resource. Donations ARE Tax Deductible.
The Witches' Voice carries a 501(c)(3) certificate and a Federal Tax ID.
Mail Us: The Witches' Voice Inc., P.O. Box 341018, Tampa, Florida 33694-1018 U.S.A.
| |
