Who won this case: Does he have to sign company diversity policy?
December 3, 2008 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Behavior, Communication, Discipline, Employment law, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Terminations, Who won?
An employee refuses to sign his company’s diversity policy because of a clause that he says affords equal treatment to homosexuals. He’s eventually fired for the refusal, and sues his employer for wrongful termination. Who won this real-life case?
The facts:
The employee claims that, for religious reasons, he cannot sign or agree to a diversity policy that demands that he “respect the differences of all employees.” The employee such a clause indicates that he would have to respect and agree with a co-worker’s sexual orientation, and that his religion forbade him from doing so. The employee notes, accurately, that he has never discriminated against a homosexual in the workplace, but still refuses to sign the policy.
The employer said:
Adherence to the policy is a requirement for working at the company, and exists so that no one can accuse the company of failing to address mistreatment of employees because of nonwork factors such as sexual orientation or lifestyle choices. Since signing is a requirement, all employees are obligated to do so.
Who won the case?
Answer: The employee.
Why: The ruling hinged on the finding that employee had never discriminated against gays, despite his religious beliefs. Demanding that he sign an agreement that was counter to his beliefs was evidence that the company was going overboard in its diversity effort.
What matters most, the court noted, was whether or not his religious beliefs resulted in his discriminating against other employees. If there was no discrimination, there was no violation. As long as his religion didn’t interfere with business and treatment of workers, the company should have accommodated him and not required that he sign the agreement.
Look for two factors
Dealing with employees’ religion can be touchy, but for a general guide you can ask: Does the belief lead to -
- conduct that treads on the rights of others in the workplace, or
- actions that are harmful to business?
Without one of those factors, it’s hard to prove that someone’s conduct in connection with religion deserves to be disciplined.
Cite: Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband, Inc.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
This problem shows up many times when disciplining employees. What is the employee signing? Does it mean that he/she agrees with all that is stated or that they are aware of the company position and expectations? On our discipline and verbal counseling forms, I have the following statement right above the employee signature line that states the following “My signature indicates that I am aware of the situation, the company policy and position regarding this situation, and the company expectations for me regarding this and similar situations. I have been given a copy of this document for my records.” I find that many employees “refuse to sign” as a means to try to avoid responsibility and a knee jerk reaction to being held accountable. I see that many employees “refuse to sign” and I am forced to get a witness to sign that the employee was given a copy and an opportunity to be made aware of the policy. Then if there is further problems, I can refer back to the earlier intervention to show that we tried to work with the employee in good faith.
If an employee feels that the company doesn’t fully understand the situation or has taken a “wrong” position, then I encourage the employee to submit a statement showing what the company failing to see or consider and still have them sign the discipline. I figure the more information the company has, the better for problem solving. Generally, employees don’t submit the statements.
I don’t fire people unless their behavior warrants it. There are very few instances where an employer can demand an employee to sign anything. There are some tax forms and the I-9 that the government has established legal requirments, but generally, the employer has no authority to compell an employee to sign. We are an “at will” employer. If an employee refuses to sign a policy acknowledgement, we go through the same process. If an employee has been put on notice and their behavior continues to be a problem, then the discipline will become more severe, up to and including termination.
December 8th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I disagree with diversity policies in general as they are part and parcel to affirmative action and quota policies. I’m glad the employee won this case as it just points out that “PC” is ridiculous in its usage in a workplace. Discipline problems are best handled individually and we are becoming a nanny state in our handling of problems such as these. If an employee mistreats another because of his, her, or its sexual orientation, there are ways to handle that – without signing a statement.