Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Court upholds HP firing of employee posting anti-gay material

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Court upholds HP firing of employee posting anti-gay material



    SUMMARY: A Hewlett-Packard employee fired for refusing to remove anti-gay biblical passages from his cubical cannot claim discrimination, a federal court ruled.

    A Hewlett-Packard employee fired for refusing to remove anti-gay biblical passages from his cubical cannot claim discrimination, according to a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) ruling in San Francisco on Tuesday.

    The three-judge panel ruled that Hewlett-Packard acted within its legal bounds when it fired Richard D. Peterson in 2001 after Peterson refused to take down the passages, which the court said were intended to "demean" or "degrade" fellow employees.

    Peterson, 55, had worked at a Hewlett-Packard office in Boise, Idaho, for 21 years when the company instituted a diversity campaign that included a poster calling for tolerance of gay employees. Peterson objected to the poster on religious grounds and, in response, hung biblical passages condemning homosexuality on the overhead bin above his cubicle.

    A self-described devout Christian who said it was his duty "to expose evil when confronted with it," Peterson deliberately hung the verses where employees and customers would see them, the Associated Press reported.

    Among the passages he posted was one from Leviticus, stating, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

    When supervisors asked Peterson to remove the passages on the grounds they could offend other employees, he refused, saying he would remove them only if the gay-tolerance posters were taken down. Company officials refused.

    Peterson told his supervisors as long as Hewlett-Packard included homosexuality in its campaign for diversity, he would challenge it. He was then given time off with pay to reconsider his stance. Upon returning to work, he reposted the verses, and was fired for insubordination. Peterson subsequently filed a $1 million suit against the company.

    "It is evident that he 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 that he was insubordinate" for not complying with supervisors' requests, wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

    "Hewlett-Packard's efforts to eradicate discrimination against homosexuals in its workplace were entirely consistent with the goals and objectives of our civil rights statutes generally," Reinhardt wrote.

    The court emphasized that although Hewlett-Packard objected to the posting of the biblical verses, it did not challenge Peterson's religious beliefs, and did not object to a homophobic letter Peterson published in the local paper about the company's diversity campaign or to the "Sodomy Is Not a Family Value" bumper sticker on his car.

    Peterson's lawyer, Christ Troupis, plans to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites).
    to HP. Guess this guy should be more careful when he works in an at-will state, eh?
    Tutto nel mondo è burla

  • #2
    So if I troll you from work, I could get fired?

    Comment


    • #3
      Do you work for HP?
      Tutto nel mondo è burla

      Comment


      • #4
        Who the hell does this guy think he is? He's posting HIS bull**** on HEWLETT PACKARDS wall. He can shove it, unless that means I can post **** all over his walls.
        meet the new boss, same as the old boss

        Comment


        • #5
          If he was offending co-workers, firing him (after enough warnings) was the right thing to do. However, if he hadn't offended employees, and thus hadn't degradated the team spirit, firing him would have been wrong, as it would have been a bad news for freedom of expression at work.

          Even if this guy is an homophobe bible thumper (i.e. real scum), freedom of expression is supposed to apply to all in your country IUC.
          "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
          "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
          "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Boris Godunov
            Do you work for HP?
            No. they are more PC. and more anal.

            Comment


            • #7
              Freedom of expression doesn't apply in a private corporate workplace. You do what the bosses tell you or you get canned, simple as that.
              Tutto nel mondo è burla

              Comment


              • #8
                Does this mean I have to take down my playboy calander?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Only if your bosses say so
                  meet the new boss, same as the old boss

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just noticed he hanged his verses where not only his colleagues, but also the customers could see them. This guy sure deserved to be fired, especially since he has been warned numerous times. What he did was utterly anti-professionalistic.
                    "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                    "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                    "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Spiffor
                      If he was offending co-workers, firing him (after enough warnings) was the right thing to do. However, if he hadn't offended employees, and thus hadn't degradated the team spirit, firing him would have been wrong, as it would have been a bad news for freedom of expression at work.
                      Even if this guy is an homophobe bible thumper (i.e. real scum), freedom of expression is supposed to apply to all in your country IUC.
                      An additional problem is that customers could see that, too. He was harming the company's image.
                      edit:x-post
                      www.civforum.de

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The bottom line is that he was told to do something by his supervisors and he refused. In an at-will state, that means firing.
                        Tutto nel mondo è burla

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The ******* deserved to be fired.
                          "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                          -Bokonon

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What a loser.
                            http://monkspider.blogspot.com/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Meanwhile...


                              COURT SAYS GAY DAD MUST HIDE LIFESTYLE

                              Tennessee - A state appeals court says a gay father must keep his homosexuality in the closet when his son is around.

                              But the state Court of Appeals says it was wrong for a lower court to send Joseph Randolph Hogue to jail for simply telling the boy he was gay.

                              As part of a divorce hearing, Hogue was barred from -- quoting now -- "exposing the child to his gay lovers and, or his gay lifestyle."

                              Hogue claimed it was an illegal and overly broad restraining order.

                              The appeals court says it found nothing wrong with the lower court shielding the child from the gay influences.

                              But the court did agree with Hogue that the order didn't specifically ban the father from telling his son about his sexual orientation.

                              Associated Press

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X