Homework answers / question archive / Conflicts between Religion and Sexual Orientation: Two Cases with Different Outcomes Richard Peterson and Hewlett-Packard 49 Richard Peterson, a devout Christian, had worked successfully for Hewlett-Packard (HP) for twenty-one years in its Boise, Idaho, office

Conflicts between Religion and Sexual Orientation: Two Cases with Different Outcomes Richard Peterson and Hewlett-Packard 49 Richard Peterson, a devout Christian, had worked successfully for Hewlett-Packard (HP) for twenty-one years in its Boise, Idaho, office

Business

Share With

Conflicts between Religion and Sexual Orientation: Two Cases with Different Outcomes Richard Peterson and Hewlett-Packard 49 Richard Peterson, a devout Christian, had worked successfully for Hewlett-Packard (HP) for twenty-one years in its Boise, Idaho, office. HP is noted for its diversity efforts, such as same-sex (and heterosexual) partner benefits and a non-harassment policy that includes sexual orientation, among other things. As part of its overall workforce diversity campaign, HP began displaying diversity posters. The posters were photos of HP employees who represented different aspects of diversity (e.g., Black, Hispanic, gay). Peterson objected to the poster that displayed a gay male, and in response to that poster, Peterson posted Bible scriptures condemning homo- sexuality on his cubicle. The scriptures were written in a sufficiently large type to be seen by Peterson's coworkers, by customers, and by others in the office area. Peterson's supervisors removed the Bible passages because they were inconsis- tent with HP's non-harassment policy. In at least four discussions with HP manage ment, Peterson acknowledged that he meant for the scriptures to be hurtful and to condemn homosexual behavior. He also claimed that HP's diversity program was intended to target Christian employees. Peterson suggested that he would remove the scriptures if the "gay" posters were removed. When he refused any other compro- mise, management gave Peterson time off with pay to reconsider. After the paid time off, Peterson returned to work, posted the scriptures again, and was fired. Peterson went to the EEOC to complain of religious discrimination, received a right to sue notice, and filed a lawsuit against HP. In his lawsuit, Peterson alleged that Christians were targeted by HP's diversity policy, that its goals were to change Christians' beliefs to support homosexuality, and that HP was on a crusade to change Chapter 12 . Religion 351 moral values in Idaho under the guise of diversity. He alleged HP had treated him dif- ferently than other employees and failed to reasonably accommodate his religious beliefs. The courts assessed HP's behavior, including a three-day meeting to deliber- ately and consciously make decisions about the company's diversity program and allowing Peterson to post anti-homosexual bumper stickers on his car that was regu- larly parked in the company's parking lot. HP did not forbid Peterson to park his car, but did ask him to exhibit respect for his coworkers. The district court ruled for HP, noting that the only accommodation that was acceptable to Peterson, removing the posters or allowing his targeted, large-type scriptures to remain, required HP to endure undue hardship. Upon appeal, the appeals court also ruled for HP, rejecting Peterson's religious discrimination claims Albert Buonanno and AT&T 50 Albert Buonanno, a devout Catholic, worked for AT&T Broadband in Denver. Buo- nanno was described as a model employee, who befriended and helped others, including transgender and gay employees. As part of AT&T's diversity program, Buo- nanno was told that he needed to sign an agreement stating he would "value" fellow employees and their behaviors. Buonanno stated that he could tolerate other reli- gions and love and appreciate other people but could not "value" homosexuality or other religious beliefs. When Buonanno was fired for refusing to sign the document, he sued AT&T under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging religious discrimination. He asked for compensatory damages to cover his lost wages and contributions to his 401k plan, emotional distress, interest, and punitive damages (available in cases of inten- tional discrimination). The judge focused on how AT&T handled Buonanno's firing and ruled in his favor, awarding all but punitive damages. She acknowledged that although deleting portions of the company handbook could make uniform applica- tion of company policies more difficult, a reasonable accommodation could have been made for Buonanno's closely held religious beliefs. Resolving Conflicts As these two cases indicate, the courts do assess reasonableness of accommodation requests and undue hardship. People's different beliefs about religion and sexual ori- entation require careful employer attention to fairness and equity for all parties in a careful balancing act. HP's purposefully designed diversity policy and thoughtful consideration of Richard Peterson's rights allowed HP to prevail in a religious dis- crimination lawsuit. In contrast, AT&T's failure to carefully consider and reasonably accommodate Buonanno's simple request resulted in its loss in a religious discrimi- nation lawsuit. Managers and supervisors must avoid being judgmental about those who have strongly held religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation. Employees have the right to their beliefs about homosexuality, but they do not have the right to denigrate or harass coworkers based on sexual orientation when doing so is prohibited by organizational policy. Even if sexual orientation discrimination is not specifically prohibited by organizational policy, respectful behaviors should be required of all employees. In addition, employees with closely held religious beliefs have responsi- bilities to comply with organizational regulations to the extent that they do not tram- ple on the employees' religious rights. Where an organization requires respectful behavior toward each other, employees should comply. In the HP and AT&T cases described, both Christian men had strongly held beliefs. Peterson chose to go against organizational policy in an unreasonable manner. In contrast, Buonanno chose to go against an organizational policy that was unreasonable. 352 Part 2. Examining Specific Groups and Categories An unusual situation involving conflicts between an employee's Christian reli- gious beliefs and job requirements occurred at Eckerd's in Denton, Texas. Gene Herr, a pharmacist at Eckerd's, was fired because he refused to fill a prescription for the morning after contraceptive pill for a woman who had been raped, citing religious grounds. If taken within seventy-two hours of intercourse, the morning- after pill prevents contraception in most cases. According to news reports, an unnamed rape victim took her prescription for the pill to Eckerd's in Denton, Texas. There, Gene Herr and two other unnamed pharmacists reportedly refused to fill the prescription. Herr called his associate pastor to see what he thought and learned that the associate pastor agreed with his decision. Herr returned to the counter and told the woman that if she had conceived as a result of the rape, the pre- scription would take the child's life, and thus he couldn't fill the prescription. Eckerd's has a policy that no pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription solely on moral or religious grounds; therefore, Herr and the other two pharmacists were fired. Although he had worked for Eckerd's for five years and had refused to fill that prescription for several other women, Herr was reportedly unaware of the pol- icy prior to his termination. Texas law prohibits doctors, nurses, staff, or employees of hospitals or health care centers from being forced to participate in an abortion; however, Eckerd's is none of those facilities. In another, less urgent situation, also in Texas, a CVS pharmacist refused to fill the birth control prescription for a cus- tomer, Julee Lacey. The pharmacist told Lacey that she did not believe in birth con- trol and therefore would not fill the prescription. The CVS policy is not to force pharmacists to do things that will violate their religious beliefs; thus the pharmacist retained her job. Lacey, a married mother of two and a Christian herself, found another pharmacy. As with the cases involving sexual orientation and religion, these two situations demonstrate the diversity of religious beliefs, within the same religion, and different consequences for the employee. Given the complexity of religious beliefs, organiza- tions must pay careful attention to religion as an aspect of diversity. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS Individuals should be aware of their rights to faimess in the workplace with respect to religion. Employers should allow employees to observe religious practices, so long as this does not cause undue hardship to the employer. In requesting an accom- modation, individuals should decide in advance what things would help the employer to comply. If a time is required to pray during work hours, employees should plan to make up the time before or after normal hours. Posting religious say- ings is not illegal, but such postings should be for one's own edification, rather than for sending a message to others. A reasonable size for such postings and nonoffen- sive language are allowed under EEOC guidelines. Employees should also carefully watch their own behavior for actions that could be construed as discriminatory or unfair. Simple things such as language can be offen- sive. For example, a statement that someone was "Jewed down" is derogatory and may be offensive to Jews and non-Jews alike. People should also try not to make assump- tions about someone's religious beliefs or practices based on his or her outward appearance, race, or national origin. As with other aspects of diversity, people should make a conscious attempt to be aware and avoid denigrating someone's religion. Individual job applicants and employees should decide what they will and will not do and what is reasonable or fair to ask of employers. They should figure out a way to help employers help them. What is a reason-able accommodation? Lastly, they should be willing to assess whether their beliefs sufficiently conflict with an organization's legitimate position on certain issues (eg, the morning after pill) to decide to work elsewhere.