The fastest way to find yourself on the losing end of a religious discrimination case is to actively practice your religion as part of your business operation. Pretty obvious stuff, huh? I don't think I've had to tell more than one client, ever, that actively running your business as a kind of religious enterprise is "a really bad idea."
So here's the case out of the Eighth Circuit that reinforces all of the above. The plaintiff works for a home building company in Nebraska and is a member of the Assemblies of God Church, a relatively conservative Protestant denomination. The owner of the business, John Smith, (I am not making this up) believes, among other things, in reincarnation and that trauma in past life explains behavior in this life. In order to cleanse the collected residual negative energy from past life traumas, Mr. Smith would direct the employees to so-called Mind-Body Energy sessions. These sessions, some of which were conducted in California (of course), required the building company employees to discuss Hindu, Buddhist, and Tibetan religious teachings. The employees had to carry with them at all times a card containing the company's core values that included statements that everything in the universe is connected and uncorrected problems from past lives must be corrected in the present. MBE coaches would come to the worksite to assist employees in releasing this negative energy, in some cases apparently by talking not only with each other, but with animals as well. Mrs. Smith, who was the head of the Human Resources Department, kept records of these MBE sessions and appointments and the employees generally felt that attending the sessions was a job requirement.
The plaintiff complained to his supervisor that doing things like channeling dead people and talking to animals conflicted with his religious beliefs. He was advised by his supervisor to schedule and then cancel his MBE sessions to give the impression that he "bought into" the whole spirituality gig.
In its opinion, the Court gleefully recounts some of the other activities in this workplace, including Mr. Smith's negative energy discovery techniques, which involved asking someone "yes" or "no" questions while pushing down on the individual's extended arms. If there was strong resistance, the answer to the question was "yes", while a weak response indicated a "no". A similar test was apparently performed with fingers. Mr. Smith indicated that he used this testing method to make business decisions and the Court described how the owner solved a drainage problem on one of his subdivisions by determining that one of his managers had an Ice Age relative who perished on the land. Under Mr. Smith's theory, the manager was unknowingly defending the land on behalf of her ancestors through some sub-concious mechanism that caused the land to drain poorly. Sounds vaguely like a plot line from Forbidden Planet.
Against this backdrop, which makes The Office look pretty mainstream, the company hired a female associate to work under the plaintiff's supervision. Shortly after her hire, the woman complained about the plaintiff's comments to her and requested reassignment. Upon inquiry, the plaintiff admitted that he had "crossed the boundaries" by asking his female subordinate what her "freakiest" sexual encounter was, how long had she known her spouse before she had sex with him, how many sexual partners she had, and if she wore thong underwear. The company terminated the plaintiff for poor leadership and lack of judgment, but did not mention sexual harassment in the termination. The Court noted that the owner admitted using the muscle testing method in his decision to terminate plaintiff.
The plaintiff sued for religious discrimination and retaliatory discharge. Notwithstanding his admitted conduct, which would be enough to justify termination in this space-time continuum, the jury found for plaintiff on his religious discrimination claim. However, the jury awarded plaintiff only $1 in nominal damages, obviously taking into account his fixation with, uh, non-work-related issues. The trial court denied the employer's motion for judgment as a matter of law and awarded plaintiff all of his attorneys fees (reduced by 25%). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision.
The court found that there was enough evidence to support the jury's belief that the company's stated reasons for terminating plaintiff - his inappropriate comments to a female subordinate - were pretext because of the degree of religious influence and practice within the workplace. The jury also apparently placed some credence in the plaintiff's claim that his subordinate was sexually provocative and initiated the inappropriate conversations, and that he may have been set up by her assignment to him for supervision. In another gleeful footnote, the court noted that the female subordinate was later terminated after she removed her clothing at a golf outing and performed cartwheels, naked, on the golf course. Personally, I think she was just using another method to get rid of that old negative energy.
The message here is, well, if not clear, at least worth repeating. Encouraging, and in some cases, requiring the open practice of religious beliefs within a workplace is a prescription for disaster. Even in cases where the employer has a solid basis for a termination decision, it's easy for a jury to shift the focus to the religious practices (especially in this case) as a basis for the adverse employment action.