Oregon construction worker fired for refusing to attend Bible study

[left-of-center2012]

A 34-year-old man has filed an $800,000 lawsuit against a Albany, OR, construction company claiming the owner fired him after he refused to attend weekly Bible study.

Ryan Coleman’s lawsuit states that he discovered only after he was hired as a painter for Dahled Up Construction that the job entailed more than just fixing up homes. According to Coleman and his lawsuit, owner Joel Dahl told him all employees were required to partake in regular Bible study sessions led by a Christian pastor during the work day, while on the clock.

Coleman told Dahl that the requirement was illegal, but Dahl wouldn’t budge, according to the lawsuit. In order to keep his job, Coleman obliged for nearly six months but ultimately told Dahl he couldn’t go, the suit says.

“I said ‘I’ve kept an open mind, and it’s just not my thing.’
And he said, ‘Well, I’m going to have to replace you,'” .
“He said ‘You’re not going to tell me how to run my own company,’” Coleman continued.
Dahl's Albany attorney, Kent Hickam, doesn't dispute that Dahl requires all of his employees to attend Bible study, but says it’s legal because Dahl pays them to attend.

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2018/08/lawsuit_oregon_construction_wo.html#incart_std

[woodsprite]

1. If that was a requirement of the job and wasn't mentioned up front before he accepted the job

I would still think he'd have a case.

[unblock]

3. even if it was clear up front it's still blatant discrimination.

the employer has no case whatsoever.

[haele]

6. Not sure what is meant by that.

Being required to participate a particular ritual (or not participating) can't legally be a requirement of the job unless the task was specifically representative to a restricted organization; say, like taking a position as clergy in a church or a direct operational management organization with a membership requirement, like a club.

It doesn't matter what my employer tells me he or she prefers; if I don't want to stop and go to an hour's afternoon bible study on the job (paid or not), but want to get my tasking done instead and go home, it is considered reasonable for my employer to accommodate me and let me continue working. Like a company having a "morale hour - team bonding" event - one that isn't primarily a staff planning, site/occupational safety, or job training meeting.
You can go to those, or you can decide you'd rather work; the higher-ups can be disappointed, but they can't fire you if you've decided to work instead, even if it's catching up on paperwork, cleaning tools, or doing a supply audit.

It is unreasonable for any employer to fire me because I'd rather do the work I was hired to do instead of taking time off to indulge the personal beliefs of my boss or manager.

The reason this employee has a case is that a construction business isn't a restricted organization, it's publically licensed and incorporated under the federal and state laws, including EEO.
While the owner can set working hours, holidays, and such according to his or her preferred religious Sabbath and holy days, discriminating against a qualified employee or employee applicant based on religious preferences is still against the law, because a job site is not a religious institution, no matter what the owner might believe.

Haele

[unblock]

2. paying those who agree while discriminating against those who don't doesn't make it legal.

blatantly illegal.

once again we see the right-wing interpretation of "freedom" at work. you can't tell me how to run my company, but i can tell you how to pray to god.

[onenote]

4. Right. The idea that they paid him as making a difference is weird

Could an employer tell a Jewish employee that he has to eat a ham sandwich but don't worry, the employer is paying for it? Don't think so.

[unblock]

5. indeed. of course in practice, they're not paying the jewish employee because he quit.

they end up paying the people they didn't discriminate against. what does that do for the person who *was* discriminated against?

[BSdetect]

7. Slam dunk lawsuit.

[Initech]

8. I said in the other thread about this...

That I have a huge problem with religion taking advantage of vulnerable people, this seems like this was exactly the case. This poor guy was in recovery and religious douchebags tried to take advantage of him by putting him to work in an environment where he had to play to one particular religion. This should be a pretty open and shut case.

[0rganism]

9. Mr. Dahl's about to "render unto Caesar", bigly

looks like it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy

[manor321]

10. I hope the lawsuit takes the fucking company down

Shove that Bible right up your ass, sir!