Superstitious Christian Worker Sues Because Workplace Made Him Wear a ‘666’ Sticker

Team Christian here. What if a private company required employees to wear a sticker that said “I was created by God to help you” for a day? Or maybe “God told me Darwin was wrong.” It’s just a silly, superstitious sticker, but antithetical to what you believe. Would you wear it?

I’m a former believer, and when you believe, it’s a faith thing, not  proof thing, as we all well know. And, to a believer, taking the mark of the beast is a Very Big Deal. So we might not agree, but that doesn’t mean we should force someone to do something completely against their belief system.

Wait, the more I think about it, this person is overreacting crazily. If the company required “666” tattoos to commemorate the day, I’d be Team Christian. As it stands, it’s a temporary, innocuous reminder of safety and no more likely to offend God than a Hello Kitty sticker. Get over it.

Do you think an anti theistic employer could use such techniques to oust religious people from their workplace? Say force them to wear a sticker honoring evolution or  modern medicine? Something that is not specifically anti-religious, but that certain religions might hate?

I think we should accept the apology of the Gelato guy,
on the other hand . . .

It seems to me like he could have avoided the whole incident simply by causing an accident thus resetting the counter and putting it off for another two years.

This was also posted over on Slashdot, and someone there proposed a simply solution:  all he needed to do was have an “accident” the week before. 🙂

Anyway, I think it’s very likely he will win his case (or, rather, it’ll settle ahead of time) assuming the facts as we’re getting them are correct.  Not a lawyer, but I’ve been through diversity training as a manager and from what I learned there the business should’ve accomodated him if only to avoid ending up where they are now.

-Matt

I’m the first to admit that I don’t know much about scheduling in factories, or how vacation time works for them.  But if I were in his shoes, and thought that this was that critical to me and my salvation, I’d ask to take a personal/vacation day.  Even if I was exempted from bearing The Mark Of The Beast, I’d still be spending an entire day around people who chose to wear it, and I can’t imagine that being good for your soul.

That being said, this shouldn’t a firing offense, and if that’s the only strike against Mr. Hyatt, then Pliant Corp. deserves the lawsuit it’s facing.  

Attaching superstitious significance to numbers is extremely common in some Asian countries. Much more so than in the west. And the reason is cultural, not religious. I wonder what the legal situation is like there about things like this

On the one hand, you want to accomodate legitimate requests to be excused. On the other, you need to maintain control of your employees.
Rather than a three-day suspension, I’d probably have been tempted to offer him that one day off as unpaid leave.

I wonder, though, what the rest of the story is, and what I do know about privacy laws, is that it’s unlikely that we’ll hear the company’s side of things unless (or until) this goes to court.  
From the article:

The company, now known as Berry Plastics Corp., did not return several calls and emails seeking comment. It has yet to respond to the complaint in court.

Think about the Freshwater case – if you only heard Mr. Freshwater’s side of the story, you’d think that he was persecuted only for keeping a Bible on his desk.

Only in religion do the inmates pity the escapees!

It seems a bit fantastic that someone would get fired for not wearing a sticker. Maybe there are other reasons or he was on a probationary status. If all he was fired for was refusing to wear a sticker for religious reasons he clearly has a case. But, is that really all he was fired for?

He could have avoided damnation if he just wore the sticker upside down.

I was watching this on CNN just a little bit ago and got pretty pissed at how they covered it. The guy they had on there to talk to about it was acting like this guy has a good case and the company was firing him based on his religious beliefs. Even dared to make the ridiculous argument that if this was about him wanting to go to work wearing a leopard print g-string as part of his religious beliefs it would be different, but because this is a bonafide religious belief, it’s got merit. Of course, no voice or reasonable opposition is made. I’m willing to bet this sticker incident isn’t the only thing that was wrong with him. He’s probably just taking advantage of the fact that the company has a policy against publicly discussing legal matters before they’ve gone to court.

This had nothing to do with his religious beliefs. He made it about that all on his own. Like Hemant said, the company wasn’t asking him to abandon his religion. He’s purposely taking things completely out of context. Not that I’d expect more from someone this crazy.

Preferably an accident that removes his (obviously useless) head. Not someone else s

The whole idea that businesses, government, and individuals “Have” to accommodate  ANYONES mythologies is ridiculous. Anyone who brings their silly superstitions to  the workplace should be fired. Especially politicians, and bosses. Even if you believe in one(religion) yourself? Even the dumbest of people can recognize that not all in your workplace will believe as you do and introducing the subject into the workplace is going to cause discomfort and issues. If you cant keep your beliefs at home? You need to friggin stay there.

I’m of the opinion that he does have a really good case. Of course assuming that these are all the facts and that the employee wasn’t fired for anything else, this is a violation of the law. I’m going to repost what  I wrote earlier: 

To show that an employee has had their rights violated under the religious accommodation rules they must show that: 1. They have a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement. 2. The employer was made aware of the conflict. 3. They were subjected to an adverse action (such as dismissal) for not complying with the employment requirement.Assuming that all the facts are presented here in this article then the case will be an easy one for this employee.It will be up to the employer to show that:1. They offered a reasonable accommodation OR2. After a good faith effort, no accommodation that did not cause an undue hardship could be foundI find it hard to see how a judge will find that not wearing a sticker is placing undue hardship on the employer.

*believe

I was going to make the same comment 🙂

Hotels usually omit “unlucky” numbers like 13, by the way. It’s very common. Even more so in Asian countries where such beliefs are far more widespread

You’re misusing the word “bona fide”. In legal terms Bona Fide means in Good faith; without fraud or deceit. So yes, his belief would fall under that.

well he’s likely to get something out of it just because in our courts, it seems that the whiners win. in my area, years ago, a family managed to get their house number changed from 666 to (get this!) 6661/2! not making that up! xtians are so ridiculous! its just a number! sheesh.

Wow this person is a complete idiot if you ask me. This “mark of the beast” bulls**t was meant to refer to Roman currency back in the C1st C.E not in the modern day. Its amazing how stupid some people can be.

That would make him a Herman Cain supporter (999).

I’m going to have to agree with Free2play03.  I really think this is going to be an open/shut case with the employer losing.   The employee gave the employer advanced notice.  If a sticker is required, they could have given him a blank sticker for a day, or a sticker that said 665 +1.   Being fearful of 666 is a commonly held Christian belief, and many take it very seriously. 

“The whole idea that businesses, government, and individuals “Have” to accommodate  ANYONES mythologies is ridiculous”
They may be mythologies to me and you but that doesn’t mean that individuals have to be forced to compromise their individually held convictions if they aren’t harming others. If the government tried to outlaw kippas, just as an example, I would be against it. Does freedom of expression not count anymore? Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to tell someone “no you cannot wear your religious hat in here”. 

I’m sorry, Hemant, you are very wrong on this.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is very specific about this.  The EEOC has a very long web page that explains it (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html), but the telling part is right at the top:

“denying a requested reasonable accommodation of an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – if an accommodation will not impose more than a de minimis cost or burden on business operations;”

The company has to demonstrate that there was a measurable cost or burden to them that is directly attributable to accommodation of the request.

I don’t see how it possibly hurt their business if the employee in question didn’t wear the sticker.

As I said in another comment, I don’t want any part of the First Amendment watered down, weakened, or thrown out, because then it might affect the parts that are near and dear to me.  Even if I do think that religion is ridiculously delusional.

Atheist, me, but I hope this guy wins his lawsuit. Not because I in any way agree with his silly fear of numbers. He should win because his bosses are being assholes.

The guy has an irrational fear of the number 666. Fine. The sticker isn’t necessary to the job. Don’t make him wear it. Were I his manager, I’d have told him that while I personally felt his fear of numbers was silly, that he could refrain from wearing the number. Then, when anyone asked about it, I’d say, “He’s afraid of numbers.”

This guy has been brainwashed. Hes indoctrinated, probably from infancy, in a cult that expects everyone to agree with it’s opinions and that holds all dissenting voices as sources of evil in the world.

I feel bad for the guy. I hope he wins.

Yep, 666 is serious business!  I grew up going to southern baptist churches and frequently heard people talk about the number appearing in their lives.  When I was a kid our telephone number had 666 in the middle of it and that was often a topic of conversation between my parents and others.  People wanted to know why my parents didn’t get the number changed.  They said that since there was a hyphen after the first 6 that it was OK (don’t ask, I don’t get xian logic).  Anyway, this guy should win the lawsuit.  Lots of xians see 666 as something very serious and not wearing a sticker or a modified one for one day is pretty reasonable accommodation.

I think you greatly overestimate how common it is. Not all Christians are fundamentalist, American idiots. I get that you grew up with these people, so it’s what you know, but consider that that there over two billion Christians worldwide with sometimes radically different beliefs.

One basic criteria would be the Nicene Creed. Everything else is optional. They are all true or false Christian for each other, but that isn’t the point.

Some people act as if most Christians believe this nonsense, which simply isn’t true. Many probably have some knowledge of it, but I bet most of that is more through pop culture than through their church

Right. As long as it doesn’t infringe on others.

No, it’s not. It may be hard to draw a line sometimes, but otherwise anyone could just make up any kind of bullshit and demand it to be accommodated – not matter how impractical. That can’t and won’t happen.

This is a simply case because it could easily have been resolved, but people can’t be expected to give in to just any fringe belief

He’s an idiot, and this lawsuit is gonna be laughed out of court.

No it wouldn’t — I wouldn’t put it past the stupid faith-head to make a stink over this for the express purpose of gaining Persecution Points.

Then according to the law, I can claim that my faith forbids me from working before noon…

Will he loose the case? A Law Prof. at UCLA thinks otherwise.
http://volokh.com/2011/11/18/the-safety-sticker-of-the-beast/
If plaintiff’s account of the facts is accurate and complete, then he
ought to win under the law. I discuss the relevant legal regime here,
but the basic principle is that an employer must give religious
employees special exemptions from generally applicable job requirements
if (1) the requirements interfere with an employee’s sincerely felt
religious obligations and (2) such an exemption doesn’t impose “undue
hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U.S.C. §
2000e(j); TWA v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977). The “undue hardship” standard isn’t hard for the employer to meet — any “more than … de minimis
cost” to the employer would qualify as an undue hardship. But here the
only cost was letting plaintiff not wear the sticker for one day,
something that was highly unlikely to impose any more than de minimis
cost on the employer. (To be sure, dealing with individual exemption
requests always involves some cost, just in processing the request and
deciding whether to grant it, but such a cost obviously isn’t enough to
warrant denying requests, or else the statutory duty of religious
accommodation would never be triggered.)
Indeed, courts have commonly found that employers must give religious
exemptions from dress code or grooming requirements, unless this would
interfere with safety or with the public mission of the employer (such
as a police department that requires uniforms). Thus, for instance, a
man who feels a religious obligation to wear a beard is generally
entitled to an exemption from an employer’s no-beard policy, absent some
evidence that such an exemption would pose an undue hardship on the
employer. See, e.g., Carter v. Bruce Oakley, Inc., 849 F. Supp. 673 (E.D. Ark. 1993).
A woman who feels a religious obligation not to wear pants is likewise
generally entitled to such an exemption, again unless there’s some good
reason (such as safety) for barring her from wearing a skirt or a
dress. The same principle should apply to this case.

Exactly. Dude is setting himself for a very embarrassing lawsuit. What in the world is reasonable about not wearing the sticker? Nothing lol

Not only in religion, but in many ideologies.  For example, people in the former Soviet Union pitied “poor people living under capitalist oppression”, including their compatriots who managed to escape from iron curtain.

The Civil Rights Act has its Constitutional justification based on the 1st, 4th & 14th amendments, primarily.

The establishment clause of the 1st amendment is the basis for the law which makes the request that this man made allowable.  Should a court rule that someone could be fired for not wearing a sticker for religious reasons, and should that ruling be upheld on appeals, it would weaken the first amendment.

If such a challenge could so easily get by the establishment clause, that would cause me great distress as to the standing of the rest of that incredibly important amendment.

Bottom line: whether his reasons are religious or of any other origin, this is not a firing offense.

Regardless how irrational his fear of this number is, the company is in the wrong here, any way you look at it.

You’re right!  I remember some situation where some woman didn’t want to wear her bus driver hat because she felt she had to wear her scarf.  The employer looks at the bible and declares that, according to his own interpretation, her church was wrong and she would have to wear it or  be fired.  As if it is the employer’s “right” to define the details of an employees’ religious beliefs for them, which is complete bullshit.