Article appeared in The Buffalo Jewish Review, June 4, 2004
A supervisor who had worked for a company for 18 years claimed she was wrongfully terminated when she was accused of gross violation of company policies for counseling a subordinate based on her religious beliefs that opposed the subordinate’s homosexuality.
When confronted, the supervisor admitted to the conversation but countered that she answered to a “higher calling” than the company’s policy. She then sued in Federal Court, alleging that her employer had discriminated against her on the basis of religion.
The married Evangelical woman, who supervised 13 employees, told a subordinate —who was in a state of emotional distress—that the subordinate’s problems were the result of a homosexual relationship. The two prayed together, and the subordinate referred to this event as the point in time when she was “born again.” The two went to church together at least once and attended a faith-based conference with tickets purchased by the supervisor, despite the fact that the employee already had plans for the night and initially resisted the invitation.
Later, during a routine performance evaluation, the supervisor complimented the subordinate on her work, but said she would be “disappointed” if the younger woman resumed dating other women and would be happy if she were dating a man.
Months later, with the encouragement of the supervisor, the worker, was promoted to an out-of-state branch of the company. When the vice president of the division learned of this, she invited the worker out to lunch to find out why she was leaving. The worker told the vice president that she was leaving because she was uncomfortable with the way her sexuality was being treated by the supervisor and mentioned the performance review comments and other encounters. Asked why she hadn’t informed the managers earlier that the supervisor had made her uncomfortable, she said she had not done so because the supervisor was the boss, and she could not afford to lose her job. At the time of these events, the employer had policies that forbade harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and provided for punishment up to and including termination.
The court held that the Evangelical supervisor failed to demonstrate that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of religion, when they terminated her for admitted conversations and events pursuant to the employee’s complaint.
The quick action by human resources in this company once it knew about the supervisor’s actions was commendable and in keeping with the company’s policy. If the vice president had not asked the employee why she was going to a different location, it is possible that human resources would never have been aware of the supervisor’s actions, thereby increasing the risk of liability for the company.
Having anti-harassment policies is imperative. It is also important that the workforce understands the policy and feels comfortable complaining about any violations that occur. Some companies have installed toll-free hot-line numbers that can be used off premises to ensure that employees feel comfortable making complaints.
As this Federal Court decision demonstrates, there is a clear dicta, that one’s religious beliefs cannot be the basis for comments about someone’s sexual preferences or practices.
