The anti-gay religious right claimed “religious discrimination” when Wal-Mart fired an employee who verbally harassed a lesbian co-worker, screaming at her that she was “going to hell.”
The Seventh Circuit has now upheld the firing.
Wal-Mart, by the way, also should be free to fire a gay or lesbian employee who yells at a conservative Christian co-worker and calls her a “bigot” for attending a socially conservative church. But if and when such a case arises, would anyone be surprised if the gay employee were to claim “anti-gay discrimination”?
12 Comments for “Fire at Will”
posted by Houndentenor on
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me the issue is the yelling more than what was being yelled. Most people are smart enough to avoid such touchy subjects at work. Religion, politics, etc are not good breakroom topics.
posted by BobN on
Now you’re reduced to making up hypotheticals to generate ad-serves?
posted by Wilberforce on
I think the hypothetical was meant to mock another liberal idea, in this case, the liberal challenge of descrimination at work. This site does that regularly. See Marionettes On The Left and other disrespectful turns of phrase. It bills itself as forging a gay mainstream but seems to be less about discourse and more about sneering at the liberal mainstream with half baked arguments and some ourtrageously ignorant rants.
posted by BobN on
For what it’s worth, I disagree with the judgment. An outburst in one argument is hardly reason for termination, to my mind.
posted by Houndentenor on
Do we have more detail on this case? It does seem odd that someone would be fired for a single incident unless it involved theft or physical violence. Usually in a situation like there would be a warning and a lot of paperwork (precisely to be prepared in the event that the person sues, which this person did).
posted by Jorge on
The court decision states that the policy explains that Wal-Mart has a “zero tolerance” policy for harassment “regardless of whether such conduct rises to the level of unlawful discrimination or harassment” and that it treats serious harassment as gross misconduct and grounds for immediate termination.
(By the way, the circuit decision is listed on the website, not as an Opinion ,but as a “Nonprecedental disposition”–uwha? This means it does not have the effect of binding precedent in other cases. It’s determind not to be adding significantly to the existing body of law. I’d give a citation, but this site has a habit of auto-moderating my posts when I post links.)
I don’t want to sound flippant (especially when the subject is Wal-Mart), but that’s what happens when you don’t have union protection, or you’re a new or low-level employee. Attacking gays in corporate America can make you road kill real quick. The article already says that the Illinois Department of Employment Security (that’s apparently their unemployment agency) already found that her misconduct was not severe enough to warrent termination. Wal-Mart can make its own rules on that score, and if the employees don’t like it, they don’t have to work there.
posted by Pat on
Interesting, an employee uses her religion as an excuse for her irrational, reprehensible behavior? I didn’t read the decision, but it seems to me that the court believed Walmart followed their own policy and didn’t violate any laws.
Hypotheticals are interesting, but not sure if they are analagous. Maybe if the fired employee called the complainant a bigot instead of telling her she was going to hell, and the other trash she spewed.
Now if a gay or lesbian employee tells a social conservative colleague that he/she is going to hell, because God sends all social conservatives to hell, then we have an actual analagous situation. In that case, Walmart should be consistent and fire such an employee.
BobN, I agree, that one outburst shouldn’t be grounds for firing. Who knows if there was also a paper trail with employee. In any case, in 2011 you really have to be that stupid to tell another employee they are going to hell because of their bigoted beliefs.
posted by Jorge on
It’s an overly harsh action by Wal-mart, but it probably had the right to take it, and in any case it was not religious discrimination.
In any case, in 2011 you really have to be that stupid to tell another employee they are going to hell because of their bigoted beliefs.
Yes, people will whine about anything these days. This incident was severe enough to qualify as harassment. Many people, including apparently Mr. Miller in his poorly crafted analogy, want to draw the line a lot lower, and censor dissent and debate that is not harassment. Maybe the only way we’ll be able to protect free speech in these loopy times is to get rid of this kind of law and let people fight it out themselves, gay suicide rates be damned.
Really, this is about people taking their own beliefs much too seriously in a country whose first lesson is that no faith of belief, except liberty, has ever been proven right.
posted by another steve1 on
Wilberforce, you charge the blogger with being “disrespectful” of liberals — pot, meet kettle! And why is Miller “mocking” liberals, whereas you and Jorge and other liberals are, what, models of civility as you snear and denigrate? What hyocrites you are!
posted by Jorge on
It’s been a while since I’ve been called a liberal on this site. I won’t deny it.
I’ll dissent on whatever I want whenever I want, with whatever pattern of ideological bent I choose.
Steven Miller compared a situation in which a person got fired for yelling at a lesbian that she is going to hell, with a hypothetical situation in which a gay or lesbian calls a Christian conservative who attends church a bigot. The two situations are not alike, and several other people here picked up on something like that.
I did not think Miller actually believed calling someone a “bigot” ranks alongside yelling that someone is going to hell in terms of how verbally harassing that is; I think he was probably referring more to the practice of targeting and smearing someone’s reputation as a bigot. The former idea would represent a slippery slope toward censorship of speech and ideas that do not inflict harm to people.
posted by Pauliji on
As I understand it, free speech does not apply to the workplace. Employers are allowed to restrict speech while at work. It’s really just that simple. They are allowed to determine EXACTLY what may or may not be said while during working hours. They can’t enforce hateful speech on their employees, unless of course it’s homophobic material and they are in one of the thirty states without discrimination protections for sexual orientation. But other than that they are free to set their own limits and policies for employees on the job. Once those employees punch out, they are free to say whatever they want, of course.
posted by Jay on
I might as well just read conservative Christian websites if I want to find posts that pretend that religious speech is being silenced by leftist, militant, anti-Christian homosexuals. This kind of post is shameful on a blog that is supposed to be reflecting a gay mainstream. Let me assure you that gay people who have to work with religious crazies will find a great deal of comfort in this ruling. Only people with a bizarre and utterly ahistorical idea of the first amendment would find anything alarming about the ruling–i.e., Stephen H. Miller and the Alliance Defense Fund. I suppose Pat Robertson will also shed a few tears about it on his television show.