Employer Did Not Discriminate Against Employee By Requiring Him To Remove Anti-Gay Posters From His Workspace

Issue

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered whether an employer discriminated against an employee based on his religious beliefs when it terminated him for refusing to remove anti-gay posters from his workplace cubicle. (Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2003 Daily Journal, D.A.R. 14,140, 9th Circuit (Wash.) Dec 30, 2003))

Facts

As part of a diversity campaign, Employer Hewlett-Packard displayed posters that encouraged acceptance of a diverse workforce including homosexuals. In response, Employee Richard Peterson began posting anti-gay Biblical scriptures that were easily visible to persons passing his cubicle. He intended the scriptures to be “hurtful,” hoping that his homosexual coworkers would read the passages, repent, and be saved. After many meetings with management, he refused to remove his posters unless Employer first removed its “gay” diversity posters. Employer terminated him for insubordination.

Appellate Court Decision

Employee claimed Employer violated Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination, arguing that its diversity campaign was a campaign to convert fundamentalist Christians to its values. The Court rejected this argument, noting that Employer’s goal of promoting diversity was consistent with the goals of civil rights statutes. Furthermore, Employer made no effort to change Employee’s religious beliefs. Employer merely asked Employee to treat his fellow workers with respect and to remove his postings so as not to violate its uniformly applied anti-harassment policy. The Court determined that Employee “was discharged, not because of his religious beliefs, but because he violated the company’s harassment policy by attempting to generate a hostile and intolerant work environment and because he was insubordinate in that he repeatedly disregarded the company’s instructions to remove the demeaning and degrading postings from his cubicle.”

The Court also rejected Employee’s claim that Employer failed to accommodate his religious beliefs. Noting that Employee would have only accepted two forms of accommodation, the Court concluded that either accommodation would have unduly burdened Employer. The first accommodation – allowing Employee to post the scripture passages – would have compelled Employer to permit behavior intended to demean and harass his coworkers. The second accommodation – removal of Employer’s “gay” posters – would have infringed on Employer’s “right to promote diversity, and encourage tolerance and good will among its workforce.”

The Court therefore concluded Employee failed to show that Employer discriminated against him in violation of Title VII.

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.