Man Fired for Refusing to Wear 666 Sticker

Pretty good summation!

 

What gives you the idea that I think that some regulation or restriction is needed here?

Yes, employers can require what they wish and employees can decide if they want to work there or not.

But in the end it is still a person to person relationship. IMO the employer is behaving badly and should be called on it. Since this guy probably can't take it to the church he should look for some other means of convincing his employer to relent and let him keep his job.

Perhaps his wife could go to his employers wife to plead their case. There is nothing like the shame of a good woman to make a man do the right thing. :laugh:

 

It is an overreaction by the employee. Quite silly

 

I have to wear a county badge every day or I will be reprimanded. Not quite the same thing, but close. someone thought 666 was cute or maybe it was one day past the last record 665. They might have to wear another one on 777 or 888 or 1000.

My biggest concern for the guy is why he thought 666 was a sentence to hell.

 

I guess I read too much into your statement of "If this man felt that it was a violation of his religious beliefs to wear 666 then the employer had an obligation to make a reasonable accomodation." I thought you were advocating that an employer has an "obligation" as stipulated by the government. If not, then sorry for the assumption on my part.

For the record, I don't think an employer has an obligation one way or another. If I run a business (and I do), and an employee doesn't want to follow my rules and cites religious reasons, well that's the employees problem...not mine.

 

By law, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for the religious views of their employees. A reasonable accommodation is one which does not impose an undue hardship for the employer.

While I think the employee's refusal to wear the 666 sticker is silly, the employee not wearing it does not result in an undue hardship for the employer. Therefore, the employer should have allowed the employee to not wear it. The employee was wrongfully terminated and has grounds to pursue legal action against the employer.

 

It's a bad law.

 

At will states (actually all states) can terminate you for insubordination.

 

That one has the right to do something does not necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do.

 

Which is perfect advice for the employee in this instance.

 

And employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for the religious views of employees, even in right-to-fire states.

 

I wonder what type of employer would fire an employee over such a trivial matter. I would imagine there is more to this than is being reported.

 

If Georgia is a "Right to Work" state then the employer can fire the employee with or without cause. You anti-union folks should be eating this up. It's a great day to be a Republican!

 

This is the perfect example why unions should be a thing of the past. With a union this clown would still be employed and his blatant disregard and insubordination would be encouraged and rewarded. Who knows, when it's time for collective bargaining maybe the union would use this instance to eliminate employers telling you what you are allowed to wear at all. Unions are corruption.

 

What accomodation? The employer asked the employee to wear a sticker relating to and celebrating job safety, nothing to do with religion or a person's religious views whatsoever. Employers are not required to go over and beyond to meet kooky "needs". If this employee wanted to take his lunch and tack it to the employee bulletin board because it had the image of Jesus, would that also be considered an accomodation? Same ridiculous principal

 

I agree with that as probable. But there is a bit of trouble I see with this "at will" employment. If they wanted an excuse to fire him, maybe that was it, just to look better. Although some on this thread seem to think any person can be fired for any reason whatsoever-- making constitutional and civil rights meaningless, as one can be fired for religion, race, left-handedness, hair color, nose shape... No matter how silly I think it was that that Indian in south Texas wouldn't cut his hair for his state trooper job, the courts still backed up his right.

 

People keep using the term "religious views", but this is not the accepted term. Employers have to make reasonable accomadations for "religious convictions". Religious convictions have been defined by the courts as a religious belief that you would die for. It must also be an accepted religious conviction by not only yourself, but the mainstream of whatever religion you associate yourself with.

Employers do not have to make concessions for religious preference, which is defined by the courts as a religious belief that you hold to, but would not die for; also a religous belief that you personally hold to, but the mainstream of your religion does not.

I don't know what religion this person was, but I am pretty sure that his religion does not teach that wearing that number in any capacity will send a person to hell. Therefor, the employer had every right to fire him for not wearing it. Should the employer have fired him? Probably not. But should the employee have raised a fuss in the first place? No.

I agree that any insubordination has negative consequences if left unchecked. The biggest thing here would probably have been others refusing to wear their badges on principle. Not a huge deal, but still a negative consequence.

 

That is simply not true. It does not have anything to do with whether the employee would die for that belief of if the employee's view is accepted by the mainstream of his religion.

 

Ok, so next time someone doesn't feel like doing something at work, all they have to do is say something like, "I feel it would be a violation of my religious rights" and make something up.