U.S. Court Of Appeals Rejects Religious Discrimination Claim Of [br]Supervisory Employee Terminated For Harassing A Gay Subordinate

Issue

The United States Court of Appeals recently addressed the issue of whether a supervisory employee stated a claim of religious discrimination against her employer after she was terminated for harassing a gay subordinate in violation of company policy. (Bodett v. CoxCom, Inc., (2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5008, 9th Cir. (Ariz.), Apr. 26, 2004))

Facts

CoxCom, Inc. (Cox) terminated the employment of Evelyn Bodett after she admitted to making statements to an openly gay subordinate in violation of Cox’s harassment policy which prohibits harassment based on sexual orientation. Bodett had told the subordinate that homosexuality was against her Christian beliefs and had engaged in prayer with the subordinate over the matter while at work. At the end of a performance review, Bodett had also informed the subordinate that she would be disappointed if the subordinate was dating another woman. Bodett brought a lawsuit alleging that Cox discriminated against her on the basis of her religion. The trial court found that Bodett had failed to rebut Cox’s evidence that it fired her for a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and granted summary judgment in favor of Cox.

Appellate Court Decision

The Court of Appeals held that Bodett failed to make out a prima facie case of religious discrimination. A religious discrimination claim may be brought under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act or the Arizona Civil Rights Act for disparate treatment on account of religion or failure to accommodate religious beliefs. In order to make a prima facie case of religious discrimination, Bodett was required to show that (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she is qualified for her position, (3) she was subject to an adverse employment action, and (4) other employees that are not a member of her protected class were treated more favorably or that other circumstances “give rise to an inference of discrimination.” The Court found Bodett failed to present evidence that other employees were treated more favorably or that her termination was the result of bias or animus against her religion.

The Court further found that, even if Bodett had established a prima facie case, Cox offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for her termination – Bodett’s violation of the company’s policy against harassing a fellow employee on the basis of sexual orientation. Cox clearly conveyed its harassment policy to its employees. Bodett did not deny she was aware of the policy or that she made statements to the subordinate about her sexual orientation in violation of the policy. Bodett cannot prevail on her discrimination claim because she failed to rebut Cox’s explanation for the adverse employment action. The Court concluded that Bodett did not show that her termination was more likely motivated by religious discrimination than by the explanation offered by Cox.

Legal Alert Email Disclaimer

Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.