The links were authority for the proposition that “hostile work environment” harrassment is barred whether it is based on sex or religion. Both of the cases and all of the other links touch on that issue. I find that multiple links don’t hurt anything. Some may not work when someone reads this thread in a year. And in a GQ thread, it is sometimes nice to see different perspectives on issues that are not well-settled.
I see no point in addressing your comments in more detail in this forum. If you would like to start a GD thread on the subject, I’d be happy to continue our discussion there.
Interesting question. Marsh v. Chambers held that legislative bodies that begin their sessions with prayer do not violate the Establishment Clause. The case doesn’t address the rights of legislative employees. Because the employees are not required to pray, or even listen to the prayer, it seems very unlikely.
I’m aware fo what you were replying to. I was clarifying for the OP that this wouldn’t be something covered under sexual harassment law.
Well, I guess if you wish to be superfluous you can. By interjecting what amounts to your own opinions though, you’ve already began a debate on the matter. I have no interest in a GD thread on this but there is a debate at hand and it was created by you and your editorializing and opinion-stating following that barrage of links you presented in your post. None of what I said in response to that was factually incorrect. This isn’t settled law (SCOTUS has only ruled on it in a very limited manner, none of what was linked involved SCOTUS decisions) and to the degree that it is settled there has been case law to support a management-level employee allowing prayer in a departmental meeting.
Mea culpa.
I knew that the Federal government was exempt from OSHA regulations so I foolishly assumed it was because of a general exemption and not one that was specific to OSHA.
My opinion that it is probably not illegal to have a prayer at a public meeting? Or the one where I said it would be an interesting case if employees were required to pray at the meeting?
How is your post responsive to either of these? I take it you don’t claim that it would be illegal to have a prayer at a public meeting. Did you cite any authority that said that it would not be interesting to see how the courts would resolve a case where employees were required to attend a meeting, and to participate in prayer? If you did, I missed it.
The company would be within its rights to forbid activities disruptive to the work environment, but AFAIK they cannot discriminate based on content. Thus they could forbid employees to play CDs loudly enough to disturb other workers, but not certain CDs. That is, if you didn’t object to secular music being played at roughly the same volume, you couldn’t object to spoken scripture either.
It is the disruption of work that is the forbiddable part. The religious content is protected free speech.
IANAL either, but I seem to recall from my company’s mandatory harassment training that your right to free speech ends when it creates a “hostile environment” for your co-workers. If religious content emanating from your coworker’s desk bothers you, you have a right to complain. A worker has a right not to be proseletyzed in the workplace.
So what it boils down to, it’s not a problem until someone complains. Then, if it if it persists, it’s a problem.
It’s hard to put any sort of interpretation on the statement “A private Corporation is not regulated by the Constitution…”. If it said “A private Corporation is not regulated by the First Amendment”, that’s a different story. The latter makes sense in this case while the former says that the Constitution doesn’t apply to corporations.
If you’ve read some of the links that GFactor presented earlier in this thread you would see that for something to constitute a hostile work environment, more than just “having a problem” needs to be there.
And a hostile work environment complaint tends to have MUCH better chances when the alleged person(s) creating a hostile work environment are management or the employer. When it’s a coworker of an equivalent level it is much more difficult to make the claim of hostile work environment (certainly not impossible.)
There are multiple rights at issue here.
The employee and the employer both have a right to religious expression, that’s a right that is enumerated in the United States Constitution and reaffirmed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
However, the employees also do not have to put up with a hostile work environment.
A rights-weighing is definitely required to settle the matter. When does one person’s freedom of expression constitute a hostile work environment for another person? The courts have clearly shown that a few scattered incidents by coworkers wouldn’t qualify. They’ve even gone so far as to affirm that religious icons, items, and even prayer in a departmental meeting do not constitute a hostile work environment.
With hostile work environment arguments the “reasonable actor” also must be assumed. There must be some evidence that a reasonable person in a given situation would find it hostile, if your claims of hostile work environment are considered to be unreasonable (hearing religious music would probably not be considered a reasonable claim that your entire environment was hostile) then you basically have no case.
In general the courts have focused on 1) allowing employee religious expression 2) restricting employer’s from taking religious expression too far, as it is seen that employer’s are the most likely to create a hostile work environment through religion as opposed to employees. Because employer’s control scheduling, hiring/firing, promotion/demotion, and compensation.
Obviously as a coworker you can object to whatever you want. You can request anything. Where the government might step in is if a superior mandates something that would violate one’s religious rights.
Also this is an aside, but I have a headphones policy in my office. If you want to listen to music through a walkman or MP3 Player etc, that is fine with headphones, but no music is to be played aloud. I think it’s the best of both worlds, keeps music-listeners happy and doesn’t disrupt anyone who would rather not hear music.
No. The idea that there are people who worship the Christian concept of Satan is false; this is a longtime myth propagated by Christian churches. The “Church of Satan”, incidentally, doesn’t preach the existence of deities at all.
I agree with your statements about “reasonable actor”, and that it’s debatable as to whether the religious-music scenario would qualify. Religious icons & artifacts on your desk would not be a problem for any reasonable actor. When the religiosity extends beyond your desk and into the co-worker’s space…becomes a potential issue.
I disagree somewhat with your statement about a hostile environment. Agreed that, if it comes from management it’s more likely to be taken seriously; but all the examples in my training involved hostile environments created by the plaintiff’s co-workers (the classic cases being pinups in the locker room; explicit sexual chat between two others parties, etc).
Actually, you (or your boss) might be violating her rights be demanding the CD be turned off. Your employer would not be able to silence only certain content, especially religious content, in that context (assuming there is no general rule against playing CDs at all). Now, if your co-worker left threatening notes on your desk saying you’re going to hell if you don’t repent (and your boss said that was OK), that would be a different story. But if everyone is able to play CDs at a certain volume except if the CDs are religious in nature, don’t you think that would be an odd interpreatation of the first amendment? In fact, people often forget that the first amendment, as it pertains to religion, has two parts (emphasis added):
So, boss says “only religious CDs are allowed” is not kosher, but boss says “no religious CDs are allowed” is also not kosher.
Not sure I see the distinction. What does a CoS member believe/disbelieve that a garden-variety unaffiliated atheist (like one of the dozens here on the SDMB) doesn’t?
And per the Wikipedia article…if the CoS doesn’t believe in an anthropomorphic Satan, it doesn’t seem like Anton LaVey worked very hard to disabuse anyone of that notion – being a technical adviser on the Devil’s Rain, for example.
Right - I was sort of assuming that someone would object, get an unsatisfactory response, and then sue or something.
Yes, a best-possible outcome. Since, as John Mace mentions, a policy of “you must use headphones if you are listening to something religious but not otherwise” probably would not pass muster.
