Atheist worker ‘fired because he didn’t attend company’s daily Christian prayer meetings'

[Still Waters]

Two employees have filed a lawsuit against a residential services company after they claim they were fired for refusing to participate in the firm’s Christian prayer meetings.

The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of customer service representative Mackenzie Saunders and construction manager John McGaha, the latter of which identifies as an atheist. 

The EEOC says the company in question, North Carolina-based Aurora Pro Services, unlawfully required employees to participate in religious prayer sessions as a condition of employment.

On occasion, the prayer meetings, which sometimes went for up to 45 minutes, were requested and offered ‘for poor-performing employees who were identified by name’.

https://www.ladbible.com/news/latest-atheist-worker-fired-didnt-attend-christian-prayer-meetings-20220629

EEOC Sues Aurora Pro Services for Religious Discrimination

https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-aurora-pro-services-religious-discrimination

[preacherman76]

Hmm interesting case. If it was a condition of employment and was known before the hire I don’t know if they have a case. 

[Golden Duck]

I just had six schooners during my two hour lunch.  I guess you blokes aren't praying hard enough.

[preacherman76]

Just now, Golden Duck said:

I just had six schooners during my two hour lunch.  I guess you blokes aren't praying hard enough.

Two hours??? I’m in the wrong business lol

[+joc]

40 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Hmm interesting case. If it was a condition of employment and was known before the hire I don’t know if they have a case. 

Of course they have a case.  The right to believe in the religion of your choice or to not believe anything cannot be a condition for employment.  In other words, Conditions of Employment cannot negate the Bill of Rights.  

Conditions of Employment cannot force you to take part in a religion.  Race...Color...Creed...Origin   None of these may be used as an excuse NOT to hire a person.   

[preacherman76]

9 minutes ago, joc said:

Of course they have a case.  The right to believe in the religion of your choice or to not believe anything cannot be a condition for employment.  In other words, Conditions of Employment cannot negate the Bill of Rights.  

Conditions of Employment cannot force you to take part in a religion.  Race...Color...Creed...Origin   None of these may be used as an excuse NOT to hire a person.   

Is this really a matter of belief though? The requirement from what I can tell doesn’t specifically require anyone to believe anything. They just have to participate in a activity. 
 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending it. I’ve just never seen a situation where a company requires such a thing, and is a stipulation of pre employment. Where all parties knew what was up, and agreed to move forward with the relationship anyway. 
 

I think an argument could be made that these gentlemen didn’t have to take the job, nor were they forced to stay. 
 

Push comes to shove you are probably right. Interesting case none the less. I’m interested in seeing how this plays out. 

Edited June 30 by preacherman76

[preacherman76]

Most cases of religious discrimination have to do with the employee being held accountable for their faith. This is kinda the opposite 

[rashore]

For folks that are interested, here is the lawsuit paperwork: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ncmd.92548/gov.uscourts.ncmd.92548.1.0_1.pdf

 

[simplybill]

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. I personally am opposed to forced compliance in any aspect of religion, including the flip side of this situation where the Government attempts to force a Muslim or Christian bakery to include messages on their customized cakes that violate the Muslim or the Christian bakers’ sincerely held religious beliefs.

[Guest Xetan]

3 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Is this really a matter of belief though? The requirement from what I can tell doesn’t specifically require anyone to believe anything. They just have to participate in a activity. 

The whole point of freedom of religion being in the bill of rights is to prevent people from being forced into ceremonies and practices at the whims of religious organizations.

[HollyDolly]

That's true. My dad attended St.John's Catholic Church and school in Hot Springs,Ark, back in the 1920s, early 30s, before grandma and grandpa moved back to Milwaukee. Recall him saying that over half the  kids there were not Catholics, but protestants. I guess Arkansas schools at the time weren't that great. Catholic Schools and universities  have  always had  other faiths attending their schools. How they dealt with it , don't know, but it still goes on today.  As a Catholic AND a christian, though to fundimentalists we are this side of Satan,, going to  a prayer meeting wouldn't be a big deal, UNLESS they tried to convert, which isn't happening. But I see their point. If they called a prayer meeting for the children killed in Uvalde ,Texas, and other mass shooting victims, I don't think the people who brought the lawsuit would complain. BUT to have these prayer meetings all the time are not neccessary. Sheesh, if i wanted that, I'd go on retreat at some convent. I had a great aunt in Milwaukee, who was a School Sister of Notre Dame for 60 years, dying at the age of 99. Sister Mary Generose,  my great  aunt never beat any of us over the head with the religion stick  when we would come for a visit. Come to think of it, neither did her sisters who still lived in Hot Springs. They went to mass every Sunday, brought flowers from the garden for the altars and did various church activites. They even had a grotto with a statute of Our Lady of Lourdes in it for crying out loud! But never ever did  our great aunts force the faith on us.  They weren't all bablermouth about it.  They showed their faith in other ways.Great Aunt Helen would make  baby clothes for friends and co-workers  who were expecting their first baby. Used to purchase groceries and deliver them to sick friends and co-workers too.That's some of what a christian does.

[Cookie Monster]

7 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Hmm interesting case. If it was a condition of employment and was known before the hire I don’t know if they have a case. 

T&Cs in a contact don`t override law though.

[preacherman76]

17 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

T&Cs in a contact don`t override law though.

What law? Specifically? I’m honestly asking. 

[Cookie Monster]

8 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

What law? Specifically? I’m honestly asking. 

US Employment Law & Equality Laws.

Your rights are protected, they cannot be removed by a company.

[preacherman76]

3 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

US Employment Law & Equality Laws.

Your rights are protected, they cannot be removed by a company.

That isn’t a specific law. The wording here is important. This isn’t a usual situation. 

[Cookie Monster]

8 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

That isn’t a specific law. The wording here is important. This isn’t a usual situation. 

The US states sets its laws and employers have to follow them, and that includes its equality laws.

A business cannot replace laws with their own rules inserted into an employment contracts T&Cs. Religious freedom which includes being an atheist are protected and must be obeyed.

[Golden Duck]

28 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The US states sets its laws and employers have to follow them, and that includes its equality laws.

A business cannot replace laws with their own rules inserted into an employment contracts T&Cs. Religious freedom which includes being an atheist are protected and must be obeyed.

Which law specifically? There's a greater degree of freedom for the party that has the greater "legal confidence".

From what I can find -  whether, or not, it can be demonstrated the employee was coerced to sign a contract is a significant point.

You sound like you're trying to assert your assumptions... again.

[preacherman76]

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Which law specifically? There's a greater degree of freedom for the party that has the greater "legal confidence".

From what I can find -  whether, or not, it can be demonstrated the employee was coerced to sign a contract is a significant point.

You sound like you're trying to assert your assumptions... again.

You quotes the wrong person. 
 

Anyhow wth are you talking about? I haven’t asserted anything. I even said more than once that they may have a case here. Why does every comment you have towards me have to be mean spirited? Have I wronged you in some way I’m not aware of? 

[rashore]

59 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

You quotes the wrong person. 
 

Anyhow wth are you talking about? I haven’t asserted anything. I even said more than once that they may have a case here. Why does every comment you have towards me have to be mean spirited? Have I wronged you in some way I’m not aware of? 

Golden Duck seems to have quoted the person they intended to, and that person is not you. Golden Duck didn't quote you or make a comment to you, so please don't pick an argument that isn't there. 

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

You quotes the wrong person. 
 

Anyhow wth are you talking about? I haven’t asserted anything. I even said more than once that they may have a case here. Why does every comment you have towards me have to be mean spirited? Have I wronged you in some way I’m not aware of? 

I quoted KookieMonster as I intended.

[+joc]

On 6/30/2022 at 6:37 AM, preacherman76 said:

Is this really a matter of belief though? The requirement from what I can tell doesn’t specifically require anyone to believe anything. They just have to participate in a activity. 

S.1745 - Civil Rights Act of 1991102nd Congress (1991-1992)

Declares that an unlawful employment practice is established when it is shown that a discriminatory basis was a motivating factor, even though other factors also motivated the practice. Allows, when such mixed motives have been proven and the respondent shows it would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, declaratory relief, limited types of injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs demonstrated to be directly attributable only to the pursuit of a claim under the enforcement provisions of title VII. Prohibits, in such cases, awarding damages or issuing certain types of orders.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think they have a case.

[Doug1066]

On 6/30/2022 at 6:37 AM, preacherman76 said:

Is this really a matter of belief though? The requirement from what I can tell doesn’t specifically require anyone to believe anything. They just have to participate in a activity. 

The law doesn't say anything about believing.  All it says is that the employer can't do it.

I could participate in their Bible reading.  I know just the verses for them.  But that would probably get me fired.  Fundamentalists don't like people who actually read the Bible.

Doug

[preacherman76]

5 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I quoted KookieMonster as I intended.

My bad

[Cookie Monster]

9 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Which law specifically? There's a greater degree of freedom for the party that has the greater "legal confidence".

From what I can find -  whether, or not, it can be demonstrated the employee was coerced to sign a contract is a significant point.

You sound like you're trying to assert your assumptions... again.

Why do I have to look for it when its so easy to search (sighs): What You Should Know: Workplace Religious Accommodation | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov)

`Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business).`

Out of which I have found `an atheist needs to be excused from the religious invocation offered at the beginning of staff meetings`

Religious Discrimination and Accommodation in the Federal Workplace | U.S. Department of Labor (dol.gov) also points out `Title VII also protects employees or applicants from discrimination if they do not subscribe to a particular religious view and/or are atheist.`

Again, the US state sets the laws, employers follow it. They do not have the right to overrule an employees rights as set out in law, they are protected.

[Myles]

For me, it would depend on how thing went.  If it was a daily staff meeting and the owner started the meeting with a little prayer, I'd say suck it up and attend the meeetings.

If is was a daily meeting of nothing but praying and bible education, I would say No Way.