Comments on: Termination and Eviction Over Art With a Scripture Reference Results in Federal Lawsuit http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/06/20/termination-and-eviction-over-art-with-a-scripture-reference-results-in-federal-lawsuit/ news from the frontlines of the culture war Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:10:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Peter S. Chamberlain http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/06/20/termination-and-eviction-over-art-with-a-scripture-reference-results-in-federal-lawsuit/#comment-16992 Peter S. Chamberlain Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:38:20 +0000 http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=5235#comment-16992 The essential threshold question here is what, if anything, employees ARE permitted to display in their work spaces. In many such places, including some law offices, employees are not allowed to display much of anything, among other such regulations. In the absence of a discriminatory motive or effect, the basic legal doctrine of employment at will gives the employer practically all of the legal leverage. The employer could have a legitimate concern that display of a clearly Christian--or Jewish, Muslim, Budhist, or atheist--picture might send a message to current and prospective tenants or employees that violated religious discrimination laws, or, alternativgely, discourage a prospective tenant from renting there. Turn this question around and consider an employee who displayed a picture of a militant Muslim, maybe Arafat or Sadr or even Bin Laden. Maybe some Christian leader reputed, rightly or not, to be anti-Semitic. How about Jeremiah Wright? I can remember when Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., or W.E.B. DiBois' picture would have been considered inflamatory.How about Obama or McCain? I think employers should allow a degree of individuality in workplaces but this looks like a lousy test case, and an uphill fight if it goes to court. It seems to be something that should be negotiated rather than litigated. The essential threshold question here is what, if anything, employees ARE permitted to display in their work spaces. In many such places, including some law offices, employees are not allowed to display much of anything, among other such regulations. In the absence of a discriminatory motive or effect, the basic legal doctrine of employment at will gives the employer practically all of the legal leverage.

The employer could have a legitimate concern that display of a clearly Christian–or Jewish, Muslim, Budhist, or atheist–picture might send a message to current and prospective tenants or employees that violated religious discrimination laws, or, alternativgely, discourage a prospective tenant from renting there.

Turn this question around and consider an employee who displayed a picture of a militant Muslim, maybe Arafat or Sadr or even Bin Laden.
Maybe some Christian leader reputed, rightly or not, to be anti-Semitic. How about Jeremiah Wright? I can remember when Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., or W.E.B. DiBois’ picture would have been considered inflamatory.How about Obama or McCain?

I think employers should allow a degree of individuality in workplaces but this looks like a lousy test case, and an uphill fight if it goes to court. It seems to be something that should be negotiated rather than litigated.

]]>