is it legal to have an opening prayer before a corporate meeting ?

[Scott_Plaid]

@jsc1953

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?

Well, for one thing, I don’t believe “I am my own god.”

For another thing, I am not selfish, where as it sounds like they treat it like a virtue.

[Martin_Hyde]

@jsc1953

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).

Like I said, it’s definitely not impossible for employees to create a hostile work environment for other employees. Everyone knows about the pinup example for instance :).

Training concerning sexual harassment and such tends to focus on employee-employee relations because (in my experience with this) the training programs are for employees who have many people they work with who are on the same general level that they are. There’s also material out there for management as well that I have some experience with (while I’m the owner, not management, I need to be extra-sure not to be harassing as this is my company and my money involved) that conditions supervisors not to treat people in a manner that could be construed as harassing.

[Gfactor]

@John Mace

Further to what **Martin **said…

Actually, you (or your boss) might be violating her rights be demanding the CD be turned off.

True, but probably not her First Amendment rights. The First Amendment only prohibits Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Fourteenth has been read to prohibit states from prohibitting the free exercise of religion. It doesn’t cover private employers. http://www.workplacefairness.org/index.php?page=retaliationpublic&agree=yes

On the other hand, Title VII itself has significant implications.

42 USC § 2000e–2 provides:

(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

(Emphasis added.)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002000---e002-.html

I note for the record that religion and sex go side by side in this section.

§ 2000e (this is the “independent part of that act separate from harassment based on race or sex” that Martin Hyde alludes to above) defines the terms used in § 2000e–2. Of interest here is the definition of religion, § 2000e(j) (often referred to as § 701(j):

(j) The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002000---e000-.html

So the statute not only prohibits discrimination against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s religion, but it also prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee by failing to reasonably accommodate the employee’s religious obsevance or practice without undue hardship.

These two obligations sometimes conflict, as in the situation under discussion:

WHEN RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION CREATES A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT: THE CHALLENGE OF BALANCING COMPETING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (pdf), which I cited earlier, explores the intricacies of this area of law.

Reconciling Obligations: Accommodating Religious Practice on the Job is a panel discussion that also explores the issues.

What Speech Does “Hostile Work Environment” Harassment Law Restrict?, which I also cited earlier, considers harrassment law as a restriction on speech (i.e., how much speech does it really restrict?). It does not consider 701(j). At one point, the author says:

Of course, the First Amendment doesn’t stop private employers from implementing such [restrictive] policies on their own; such a private restriction wouldn’t involve any state action. But state action is clearly present when the government threatens an employer with legal liability unless the employer restricts its employees’ speech. See Volokh, Freedom of Speech and Workplace Harassment, supra note 1, at 1816-18 (discussing relevant precedents); Epstein, supra note 1, at 400 n.5 (agreeing on this point).

(The specific text quoted responds to a proposed sexual harrassment policy).

At another it notes:

EEOC likewise found that a claim that an employer “permitted the daily broadcast of prayers over the public address system” over the span of a year was “sufficient to allege the existence of a hostile working environment predicated on religious discrimination.”

What if the person doing the broadcasting claimed that his religion required him to “spread the word” in this way, pitting his right to religious accommodation against his co-workers’ rights to a work environment that is not hostile to their religion or simply that they didn’t like the message?

This one (cached copy) discusses some of the case law on prohibitions on workplace proselytization. (Two cases, both upholding employment action based on proselytization).

Hope this helps. Happy reading.

[Gfactor]

@EEOC Guidelines

Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression if employees are permitted to engage in other personal expression at work, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Therefore, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.

Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.

These two successive paragraphs from the EEOC nicely frame the dilemma. You can’t prohibit religious expression if other expression is permitted (because that would be discrimination with respect to religion), but you can’t let employees create a hostile work environment based on their religious conduct.

The EEOC, taking the Supreme Court’s lead says:

An employer is not required to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers’ legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee’s religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees’ job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.

So if permitting the speech will interfere with the rights of other employees, an employer may place “restrictions on religious expression as long as they are [no more] than those imposed on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.”

[Zoe]

[quote]
mrrealtime, your question in the OP wasn’t stupid at all. I wasn’t sure what the law is currently myself. We are all ignorant about different things.

If you want to know something, it would be stupid not to ask.