Stop Solicitations at Work
Under the First Amendment, Americans enjoy two freedoms with respect to religion: the right to be free from a government-imposed religion, and a right to practice any religion. While private employers are not bound by the Constitution's restrictions on government, they are subject to federal and state laws that ban religious discrimination in employment. Given the number of employed persons and the variety of religious faiths in this country, and the freedom we enjoy to express our views, the subject of religious discrimination continues to pose tough questions for employers and the courts. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits private employers from discriminating on several bases, including race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Various state laws also prevent discrimination. The courts have recognized various forms of prohibited discrimination, including disparate treatment, disparate impact, and a hostile environment.
Disparate treatment is an overt form of discrimination, involving unequal treatment on the basis of an employee's religion. A more subtle form of discrimination arises through disparate impact. An employer discriminating in this way has no express policy for treating one or more religious groups unequally. Instead, a policy that makes no mention of a particular religion still functions to discriminate by affecting only certain religious groups. The third form of discrimination occurs when the employer maintains (or allows) a hostile environment for employees of particular faiths. Typically, this arises where co-workers harass an employee on the basis of his or her faith, to the point of creating an abusive or intimidating work environment.
A rank-and-file employee, a manager, or a supervisor who proselytizes persistently may offend co-workers or subordinates by insulting their religious beliefs, suggesting that they''ll suffer consequences if they don''t convert, and invading their privacy. If the speech is "severe and pervasive," the targets of the conversion may have a legitimate hostile environment claim against the company. Be sure to document everything that happens: every solicitation and every conversation along with date and time. You'll also need to document every meeting you have on the matter: who attends, what they said, what you said, and what sorts of decisions were made. If you have to take this outside the company, all of this information will be critical.
It is usually a good idea to first bring your complaint directly to the attention of the employer and attempt to resolve the problem informally. The employer may not be aware that people within the organization are discriminating, or the employer may want to address your complaint and fix the problem. If, however, you want to pursue a legal remedy, you should get expert advice and act relatively quickly. Antidiscrimination laws have strict time limits for making a claim. The federal laws require employees to file a complaint first with the EEOC before filing a lawsuit in court. In some circumstances, an employee is also required to file a complaint with the state agency charged with enforcing the state's antidiscrimination laws. For claims arising under the NLRA, employees are required to file a charge with the NLRB.
In 1997, The White House Office of the Press Secretary released GUIDELINES ON RELIGIOUS EXERCISE AND RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN THE FEDERAL WORKPLACE which spells out many "shoulds" and "should nots" for Federal employees. The guidelines also provide many examples of behavior to illistrate the points. You can also refer to the EEOC COMPLIANCE MANUAL on religious discrimination for more clarification of the legalities in your own situation.
We do see occasional documented stories of Atheists being fired for their lack of faith. Amanda Donaldson of El Dorado Texas lost her job in 2009 and her employer's reasoning was well documented. Carletta Sims worked for a CitiGroup subsidiary untill she was fired for a lack of faith. After filing a $250,000 suit, CitiGroup settled out of court for an undisclosed (but likely large) sum of money.
However, in the case of Melvin Reed there are lessons to be learned. In the words of the court, "Held, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case of intentional religious discrimination. The manager fired plaintiff because plaintiff’s sudden departure from the meeting embarrassed the manager and might have jeopardized the supply of free Bibles, and because plaintiff’s refusal to see the manager's point of view indicated that he was unlikely to be a cooperative employee. There was no evidence of hostility to plaintiff’s religious beliefs or lack of beliefs because plaintiff steadfastly refused to indicate what exactly were his beliefs. Nor did plaintiff establish a claim for failure to accommodate. Plaintiff simply asserted an unqualified right to disobey orders that he deemed inconsistent with his faith though he refused to indicate what were his religious beliefs and at what points those beliefs would intersect with the requirements of his job. Finally, the court divided on whether plaintiff’s religious discrimination claim was frivolous or not and whether plaintiff was subject to sanctions (7th Cir. 2003).
In my non-professional opinion on the case, the manager had no cause to take action because he "might have jeopardized the supply of free Bibles". The manager cannot show that his business would be harmed by not having Bibles and he is under no obligation to purchase them. Also, simply because "plaintiff steadfastly refused to indicate what exactly were his beliefs" does not mean there could be "no evidence of hostility to plaintiff’s religious beliefs or lack of beliefs". But that doesn't really matter now that the case is lost but you could still learn from the mistakes in this case.