fired for not wearing a sticker

Create Account

fired for not wearing a sticker

48 comments, 335 views, posted 7:04 pm 20/08/2012 in Business by cyvoid
cyvoid has 3378 posts, 635 threads, 107 points
victim of the masses
Tweet

A Georgia factory worker is claiming he was fired for refusing to wear a sticker celebrating how many days the plant had been accident-free.

Billy E. Hyatt is now suing his former employer for religious discrimination: He could not wear the number 666 because it's the Mark of the Beast in Revelations.

Hyatt worked on the extrusion line, making flexible packing products for Pliant Corp, which is now called Berry Plastics Corp.

"Plaintiff's sincere religious belief as a Christian is that he should not wear any depiction of the number '666' as this number is a representation of Satan and/or that this number is the 'sign of the beast,'" reads the complaint, filed in federal court. "This belief is based on Revelation 13:18 of the Holy Bible which says that '666' is the mark of the beast."

Continues the complaint: "Plaintiff['s] sincere religious belief is that to wear the number 666 would be to accept the Mark of the Beast and be condemned to hell."

The northern Georgia plant keeps a safety calendar recording the number of consecutive accident-free days, and workers then write the number on a sticker and wear it during their shift.

As the number of days crept into the 660 range, Hyatt—who had worked at the plant for more than two and a half years—discussed the issue with both his co-workers and his boss, Joe Richard. Richard told him not to worry—that perhaps there would be an accident, or that maybe they could let the calendar "stay at 665 for two days, or some other manipulation to prevent the safety calendar from displaying '666.'"

But the plant reached 666 accident-free days in a row on March 12, 2010. Hyatt asked his boss for "religious accommodation," but the boss said "that he was not going to change the safety calendar, that Mr. Hyatt's religious beliefs were ridiculous, and that Mr. Hyatt could go to work with a '666' on his safety sticker or face a three (3) day suspension."

Hyatt said he accepted the three-day suspension, but when he returned to work on March 17 he was fired.

He filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and his attorney, Stephen Mixon, told the Associated Press that the agency granted him the right to sue the company in August.

The company did not return calls and emails seeking comment, and has not responded yet in court.

Extra Points Given by:

HariSeldon (5)

Comments

[1] [2]

12:26 pm 21/08/2012

Quaektem

So if you went into work and they held a 'Love Jesus Day' where you had to wear a sticker with John 3:16 on it or face a three day suspension.... you'd be OK with that?

3:26 pm 21/08/2012

cyvoid

which by the way is illegal for a company to do. A company that has a christmas party rather than a holliday party is opening itself to discrimination suits

3:36 pm 21/08/2012

cyvoid

Quote by Flee:

poor guys. guilty until proven innocent. You civil system scares me.

why? they will have to prove that they did not fire him over the sticker or that the sticker was of critical importance to the company, ect. Basically they will need to show just cause and prove they weren't just being assholes.

He will have to show that the doctorine of his particular flavor of religion contains prohibitions against wearing the number. As easy as having his preacher testify, and he will get his job back. that's all. he can't claim damages, only lost wages and court cost.

This was a stupid move on the part of the management that needlessly exposed the company to risk. I know berry plastics and have worked with other locations. always pleasant to work with, don't know about for.

3:45 pm 21/08/2012

cyvoid

Quote by Flee:

Quote by DarkHelmet:

I'm going to invent a new religion called Contractity so no matter what legal document I sign I can still do whatever I want, because of the way I interpret the words in the contract.

I'm in! I will use any contract I sign against you as my interpretation of your religion differs slightly

go for it. write up your religious tenants and scripture, go through the effort of getting it recognized by the state and federal government and you too can bask in the constitutionally guaranteed right not to have your religious beliefs infringed upon.

Thats how inmates if a federal prision got steak to eat.

Just remember, if your beliefs interferer with the critical workings of the company you can still be fired, and that they won't protect you if a jury of your peers just thinks you are being an asshole. Also remember that your religion won't make you legally not liable if you enter a contract in bad faith - ie sign a contract with the intent of violating the terms because of your religious beliefs. And if you go to court over a legal document it will be the judge that interprets the language of the document, not you

2:09 am 22/08/2012

Flee

Quote by Quaektem:

So if you went into work and they held a 'Love Jesus Day' where you had to wear a sticker with John 3:16 on it or face a three day suspension.... you'd be OK with that?

Even though cyvoid pointed out this is illegal, if it were to happen, I would probably just wear the sticker for the day and not rock the boat. Even if I was an atheist.

Jesus, or the lack of Jesus, doesn't pay my bills.

2:15 am 22/08/2012

Flee

Quote by cyvoid:

The plaintiff needs to prove they were wronged. If this can't be done, the case should not make it to trial. This is the basis of "innocent until proven guilty". If the defendant needs to first prove his actions were legal, then it is clearly the reverse and they are assumed guilty. This would be a dark day for peoples freedoms.

So the plaintiff would first need to prove the requested action was against his beliefs. You can't prove something with "because I say so". For every priest the plaintiff can bring forward to say this is against the religion, the defendant will be able to come up with one that says its only the right hand or forehead and is not against the religion.

Since Q noted the plaintiff only needs 51% of the vote, the plaintiff will probably win, but at the end of the day there is no actual proof that is definitive.

2:28 am 22/08/2012

Quaektem

Quote by Flee:

This is the basis of "innocent until proven guilty"

You keep confusing Civil and Criminal court...

Quote by Flee:

You can't prove something with "because I say so". For every priest the plaintiff can bring forward to say this is against the religion, the defendant will be able to come up with one that says its only the right hand or forehead and is not against the religion.

Actually he would only need one... and really, considering how many atheist lawsuits have been won to remove religious icons from workplaces and given that atheists don't have a book of religious dogma or a religious organization to back them up I doubt you would need much more than a consistent adherence to that belief system. The article shows that he told his employer of his concerns ahead of time, and was aware of the punishment for violation. The employer went ahead anyway and the employee took his punishment in stride and yet he was still terminated.

Quote by Flee:

Since Q noted the plaintiff only needs 51% of the vote, the plaintiff will probably win, but at the end of the day there is no actual proof that is definitive.

Again, Civil court. Think Judge Judy instead of Law & Order.

2:39 am 22/08/2012

Flee

Quote by Quaektem:

Can't argue that. Thats why I prefer a religious person to an atheist

Quote by Quaektem:

Again, Civil court. Think Judge Judy instead of Law & Order.

don't watch either, but i know what you mean and even in the Judge Judy situation, does the plaintiff not go first in every case? This is what I mean about innocent until proven guilty. The plaintiff starts and makes his case for why and how he was wronged, and the defendant defends against those accusations.

If the defendant starts in the trial, the only logical conclusion is that he is deemed guilty from the start.

3:24 am 22/08/2012

Quaektem

Quote by Flee:

This is what I mean about innocent until proven guilty. The plaintiff starts and makes his case for why and how he was wronged, and the defendant defends against those accusations.

Right. This article would be the 'evidence for the plaintiff' since it tells us that side of the story. Since we know the grievance we are looking to justify the defendant's actions in much of the debate because once the plaintiff states his case (in this case that he was fired for not wearing a sticker he believed was a sin to wear) it's up to the defendant to justify his actions (why the sticker was mandated, the reason it carried a three day suspension and why the plaintiff was eventually terminated).

3:56 am 22/08/2012

Flee

I am just wondering how the plaintiff proves his case. I would think you would have to bring some documents, or something that shows this is the religious structure.

He can say its against his religion, but that isn't enough for a prima facie case. You would have to come up with something more compelling.

(Yes, I added prima facie in there just to be fancy )

12:12 pm 22/08/2012

Quaektem

His 'proof' would be approaching the employer ahead of time in an effort to express his beliefs and his concern about an upcoming event. Since the mark of the beast has been translated to 666 in the Bible (and been used as the mark of demons and the Antichrist in movies since the 20's) it will not be too hard to demonstrate that this is a legitimate concern. Add to that the plethora of websites that are dedicated to extremist Christian views and he'll be able to produce a plethora of 'evidence' that 666 is evil. (A Google image search on 666 will demonstrate what I mean)

As for the discrimination part, he only has to convince the jury or judge that the termination was based on the suspension, which was based on him adhering to the belief that 666 was evil and that the main cause for his termination was not wearing a sticker.

5:45 pm 22/08/2012

cyvoid

put religion aside. it is a discrimination lawsuit. all the defendant has to show is that he was discriminated against by the company which created a hostile work environment and lead to his firing. Usually not hard, which is why atheists win court cases. There is a low level burden of proof.

And we are not talking my religion says i must have every other friday off, because i am in a cult, but rather a mainstream widely known, and more importantly, widely accepted viewpoint. All the plaintiff needs is an authority figure from his church to agree with him on the stand.

Yes we (here) may be making the company guilty until proven innocent, largely because we believe it is quite clear that they were wrong.

I have an employee that is 60+, and is really not good at her job, especially as i envision her job description. and although we are in a right to work state, I have to develop significant documentation to remove her so that i don't expose the company to an age discrimination suite.

6:50 pm 22/08/2012

HariSeldon

Quote by cyvoid:

It isn't discrimination. He was not treated differently. He was given reasonable directions from his employer. He refused to follow them. Nothing even resembling discrimination.

Quote by cyvoid:

Now who is being discriminatory? You're saying that only large religions and ones long established have the right to be protected. Previously you stated only religions with holy scriptures and that are recognized by the government as religions are protected. Again that is the only discrimination here. So now you are saying that only large, old, and very wealthy religions get protected. That isn't the case.

Quote by cyvoid:

Yes we (here) may be making the company guilty until proven innocent, largely because we believe it is quite clear that they were wrong.

I have an employee that is 60+, and is really not good at her job, especially as i envision her job description. and although we are in a right to work state, I have to develop significant documentation to remove her so that i don't expose the company to an age discrimination suite.

Of course they are not wrong in the least. And your example of having to document that a person is not capable of doing their job properly has nothing what so ever with being able to fire a person for refusing to follow instructions. Period.

Oh, and I am afraid that my religion says I am Right. Therefor if you voice a disagreement you are violating my civil rights and I will be forced to seek compensation.

unless your religion says it is sinful to refrain from disagreeing in which case I am screwed.

10:08 pm 22/08/2012

Quaektem

Quote by HariSeldon:

He was given reasonable directions from his employer.

That's debatable...

Quote by HariSeldon:

He refused to follow them.

... and took the declared punishment. It was only after facing that punishment that he was fired.

Quote by HariSeldon:

Was this worker able to perform his job duties without wearing a sticker for a day? I can see no reason why he could not work on an assembly line without a sticker so the question is not job performance.

If he has a documented history of thwarting instructions (other than those going against his professed beliefs) then he is likely to loose this case, but if this incident is fond to be the reason that the company is screwed.

10:09 pm 22/08/2012

Quaektem

Quote by HariSeldon:

Oh, and I am afraid that my religion says I am Right. Therefor if you voice a disagreement you are violating my civil rights and I will be forced to seek compensation.

unless your religion says it is sinful to refrain from disagreeing in which case I am screwed.

Only ih he was your employer

10:10 pm 22/08/2012

Flee

I wonder if the company has a 3 strikes policy and this was his 3rd suspension. Of course that is 100% speculation, but who knows what the real story is.

10:17 pm 22/08/2012

Quaektem

That could be...

Let me ask you this Flee. If you were his supervisor or employer and you were faced with an employee who didn't want to wear a company mandated sticker with one number that would only come around every two years at the most because he believed (crazy or not) that it was going against his religious beliefs... how would you handle the situation?

Think of the myriad of ways this could have been handled better by management from the start (including telling him to just take the day off without pay instead of having him face a three day suspension!).

How do you justify the incompetence of the management of this company?

10:29 pm 22/08/2012

cyvoid

Quote by HariSeldon:

It isn't discrimination. He was not treated differently. He was given reasonable directions from his employer. He refused to follow them. Nothing even resembling discrimination.

A. I was speaking of discrimination lawsuits in general rather than specifically religious discrimination.

B. you are right in this particular case if you remove religion from the equation there is no discrimination. However you can't because that is the basis for the entire thing.

Quote by HariSeldon:

Quote by cyvoid:
And we are not talking my religion says i must have every other friday off, because i am in a cult, but rather a mainstream widely known, and more importantly, widely accepted viewpoint. All the plaintiff needs is an authority figure from his church to agree with him on the stand.

Now who is being discriminatory? You're saying that only large religions and ones long established have the right to be protected. Previously you stated only religions with holy scriptures and that are recognized by the government as religions are protected. Again that is the only discrimination here. So now you are saying that only large, old, and very wealthy religions get protected. That isn't the case.

here i am being simply explanatory of how easy it would be to prove the plantiff's case. Simple well known issue and religion rather than a non mainstream cultish religion. it makes a difference when convincing ones peers.

Quote by HariSeldon:

actually it does. she often isn't capable of following simple instructions or completing simple assignments. If she was 30 i could fire her for cause. because she is older I have to ensure there is no potential for a discrimination suit. it is an example of the steps a company has to go through to protect itself from discrimination suits.

Based on the information provided in the article the company is completely in the wrong and is guilty of religious discrimination and wrongful termination.

Quote by HariSeldon:

Oh, and I am afraid that my religion says I am Right. Therefor if you voice a disagreement you are violating my civil rights and I will be forced to seek compensation.

It is a simple concept. As an employer I cannot force you to do anything that violates your religious beliefs provided that these actions don't interfere with your job performance or with the company's performance. Wither it be allowing a muslum time to pray or not forcing a christian to wear a 666 sticker or not having crosses as office decorations.

10:32 pm 22/08/2012

Flee

Quote by Quaektem:

Let me ask you this Flee.

My opinion isn't valid when considering what is right. I am not the law, nor the business, but since you ask, I wouldn't mandate that anyone wear a sticker for anything. I'm not that type of guy. I like giving people the option to do things like this. When it comes time to promote someone, team players would be considered before those who opt out.

I don't think the business handled themselves very well, and do think a 3 day suspension is too much, but the business is free to operate as they choose, and if they have shitty policies, I assume it will become harder and harder to find good workers that want to work for such a shit company.

10:43 pm 22/08/2012

Quaektem

Well put. In fact, as a libertarian I agree with every one of those sentiments. My position was based on defending the guy based on current American law but in the 'perfect world' it wold work just as you put it.

10:49 pm 22/08/2012

cyvoid

A. giving people the option to opt in to a safety program is less than effective.
B. dealing with large numbers of people in a manufacturing environment is not conducive to individuality
C. I pretty much agree with the rest, but remember the employee should be protected from abusive employers. there is a reason the unions came to be.

d. does anyone else find it odd that the agnostic and the wiccian are defending the christian employee

10:51 pm 22/08/2012

Quaektem

Quote by cyvoid:

d. does anyone else find it odd that the agnostic and the wiccian are defending the christian employee

Besides us? (and no 'i' in Wiccan *wince*)

10:51 pm 22/08/2012

Flee

Quote by cyvoid:

agnostic and the wiccian are defending the christian employee

at the same time, this agnostic thinks the guy shouldn't win this case. He probably will, but if I were the judge, I would need scripture or something similar to rule in his favour.

[1] [2]

Add Comment

Log in via teoti, or register to add a comment!

Teh Nook • MayrHayasdan • JaranWeb • AngryShirts • GoneGeek • Eat Liver