Fedweek Legal

In two recent cases, federal courts have addresses competing tensions between an employer’s duty to embrace workplace diversity and an employee’s right to exercise religious freedom. In both cases, employees were fired; the courts allowed one termination, but not the other.

In Peterson v. Hewlett Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599, 92 FEP Cases 1761 (9th Cir. 2004), Hewlett Packard (“HP”) posted diversity posters embracing workplace diversity, specifically mentioning “gays”. Peterson asked to have the posters removed because they offended his religious beliefs, but HP refused to do so. Peterson felt that that his religious tenants required him to oppose HP’s “condoning” of sexuality and thus he posted biblical passages in public areas. HP ordered him to remove the scriptures and he refused, knowing that he would be fired.

The court found that Peterson’s termination was legal and reasoned that HP’s diversity campaign sought to increase tolerance of diversity, a goal consistent with federal civil rights statues which prohibit sexual and same-sex discrimination. HP managers “acknowledged the sincerity of Peterson’s beliefs and insisted that he need not change them. They did not object to Peterson’s expression of his anti-gay views…” HP “simply requested that he remove the posters and not violate the company’s harassment policy–a policy that was uniformly applied to all employees.”

In contrast, the Colorado District Court found AT&T Broadband violated civil rights laws when it terminated an employee who refused to sign the corporate handbook. Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband, Case No. 02-MK-778 (April 2, 2004) (J. Krieger). Like Peterson, Buonanno maintained religious beliefs that forbade him from condoning behavior or values that are repudiated by scripture. AT&T required Buonanno to sign a certificate stating that he would abide by its employment policies, which included an affirmative requirement to “value” the differences among the diverse workforce.

Buonanno did not object to treating all employees with respect and professionalism, but he could not agree to “value” beliefs that were inconsistent with his religious tenets, as doing so would require him to deny his own faith. AT&T fired Buonanno, and the trial court found the termination to be religious discrimination.

AT&T failed to inquire as to why Buonanno would not sign the handbook, did not try to accommodate Buonannos’ religious beliefs, and did not try to evaluate whether the policy and Buonanno’s beliefs could be reconciled. Buonanno was presented with only two choices – sign the statement without clarification or modification, or be fired.

An employer can terminate an employee for his religious beliefs only when religious accommodations would be unduly burdensome for the employer. Such was the case with Peterson, as his positings were harassing to other HP employees. However, AT&T could have accommodated Buonanno simply by making a minor change to the diversity language. Buonanno objected to a literal interpretation of the requirement that he “value” particular behavior and beliefs of co-workers, yet he was willing to “value that there are differences among all of us” which was consistent with AT&T’s diversity goals and would not impose any hardship on AT&T.

** This information is provided by the attorneys at

Passman & Kaplan, P.C., a law firm dedicated to the

representation of federal employees worldwide. For more

information on Passman & Kaplan, P.C., go to

http://www.passmanandkaplan.com. **