Readers should bear in mind that these nearly 400 summaries are not exhaustive -- these are not all the JW Employee lawsuits or legal complaints which have been filed in local, state, or federal courts, or with the EEOC, or with Local/State Human Rights Commissions, or other local, state, or federal agencies. These simply represent those that currently have some info about them posted on the internet, and that I have been able to locate using key terms. I'm guessing that the true number of JW Employee formal complaints and lawsuits are probably in the 1000+ range over the past 40 years. Thus, Employers should take these summaries as being merely an "example" of what might occur if they violate the civil rights of one of their JW Employees.

DO NOT TRY TO FORCE JW EMPLOYEES TO SING "HAPPY BIRTHDAY".

******************

GORMAN v. SHONEY'S.  In 1993-4, a Jehovah's Witness in Pinellas Park, Florida, named Lois Gorman, was fired by the Kenneth City Shoneys for refusing to sing "Happy Birthday" to customers. An Associated Press article stated: "Lois Gorman calls her firing a clear case of religious discrimination. She says her bosses at Shoneys knew of her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness but insisted she join others around tables to sing Happy Birthday. 'For anybody to degrade my religion in such a manner is unthinkable to me,' stated Gorman."

Gorman filed a complaint with a city government agency, which ruled in her favor. Evidently, that outcome did not satisfy Gorman, because she later also filed a federal lawsuit. I have no details as to the outcome of such.

Interestingly, there is a 2003 Florida Worker's Compensation lawsuit filed by a "Lois J. Gorman" against RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES and PROTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY. That "Lois Gorman" apparently lost that case before both the WC court and the appeal in state court.

EEOC v. ROCKY MOUNTAIN INNS INC. was a 1999 Colorado federal lawsuit involving a Jehovah's Witness named Trini Alonzo. Alonzo claimed that she was fired from Clancy's Restaurant in the Holiday Inn in Alamosa, Colorado, in June 1996, because she refused to serve birthday cake to a customer. Alonzo's religious discrimination lawsuit stated that her beliefs precluded her from participating in birthday celebrations or serving birthday cake, and that the employer failed to provide her with an "accomodation" by having one of the other servers serve her table. Settled for an unknown amount.

******************

EEOC v. CHI-CHI'S was a 1993 Maryland federal court case which involved a Jehovah's Witness named Cora Miller. Miller was fired her second day on the job from Chi-Chi's Clinton, Maryland location for refusing to sing "Happy Birthday" to customers. An Associated Press article stated in part:

"Jehovah's Witness Cora Miller doesn't go to birthday parties. Under her religion, celebrating birthdays even the birth of Christ is considered a pagan ritual. She never found the rule a problem until she was fired from Chi-Chi's restaurant for refusing to sing 'Happy Birthday' to a luncheon customer. Ms. Miller said she tried to explain the rule to the manager of the Clinton eatery. 'I told him I could still serve the food. I can even work in the kitchen. I just can't sing the she said.' ... The rule is just one of many that bar Jehovah's Witnesses from joining in acts to which others give little thought. The order believes that saluting the flag is image worship. They believe blood transfusions are sacrilegious. Ms. Miller said she hopes the case would change the way employers treat Jehovah's Witnesses. ... 'Even if I get nothing out of this, I want every other Witness to ...' Ms. Miller said. 'No other Witness should be turned away from a job because of their belief.'"

A local newspaper reported: "A Jehovah's Witness who refused to sing "Happy Birthday" to customers in a Mexican restaurant was fired from her waitressing job. Cora Miller, 43, told the manager of a Chi-Chi's restaurant that her religion forbade the celebration of birthdays because the practice originated with atheistic kings."

EEOC filed a federal lawsuit for backpay and punitive damages on Miller's behalf. The lawsuit was eventually settled for $57,500.00, plus Chi-Chi's had to agree to adopt a new corporate religious policy emphasizing the company's commitment to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of its employees, keep records of its handling of requests for accommodation, and apprize the EEOC of its accommodation efforts for two years.

EEOC v. RAZZOO'S CAJUN CAFE was a 2006-7 Texas federal lawsuit which involved a 19 year-old Jehovah's Witness in Mesquite, Texas named Sabrina Balentine.  Balentine was allegedly fired by Razzoo's Cajun Cafe for refusing to sing "Happy Birthday" to customers. One local news report stated in part: "Balentine, who is a Jehovah's Witness, said such celebrations are forbidden by her religion. According to a news release issued by the EEOC Thursday, Balentine said she offered to cover the other waitresses' tables while her co-workers sang for the customers." Another local news report stated in part: "As a Jehovah Witness, Balentine said she can't sing the birthday song. 'Birthday celebrations, we believe, are spoken of against in the bible, and holiday celebrations...,' said John Priester, Jehovah's Witness elder. ... But Balentine said her bosses would not compromise. They suggested, '"Could you just clap and smile along with everybody else near the table and not actually sing the birthday song?"' Costas [attorney]said. 'But even that is contrary to the beliefs of her religion.'"

EEOC filed a federal lawsuit for backpay and punitive damages on Balentine's behalf. That lawsuit was settled in June 2007 for the amount of  $38,750.00.  Razzoos was also required to establish a company-wide anti-discrimination program, which will be actively monitored by the EEOC for two years or longer.

It is only rumored that the restaurant chain may also be sued by JW patrons because JWs do not receive free cake as do other Razoo patrons. Maybe Razoos can develop a JW-friendly "non-birthday cake" which can be given free to all JW patrons who request such? Razoos should be cautioned that such a cake would only be acceptable to JWs if the flour is made from "miracle wheat".

******************

A 1997 New York unemployment compensation case is very informative. A Jehovah's Witness worked as a waitress from November 1994 through April 1995. When the JW Employee was hired, she told the employer that she did not celebrate holidays because of her religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness. The employer accommodated her restrictions. She was not required to wear a holiday hat on New Year's Eve, as did other staff. On her last day at work, claimant saw a cake with "Happy Birthday" written on it in the employer's kitchen. She quickly informed the employer that she could not serve the cake, since her religious beliefs prohibited her from participating in birthday celebrations. She suggested that another server handle the party group, or at least the serving of the cake. The employer ended up serving the cake that evening, but explained to the JW Employee that he could not accommodate claimant's religious beliefs on this matter in the future. The restaurant was small and operated at times with the JW Employee as the only server, and the employer was not always available to help out. The employer had other birthday parties scheduled, and the JW Employee was on notice that she would have to be prepared to serve these customers. The JW Employee told the employer she would have to quit.

Unemployment benefits were initially granted, but the employer objected, and won on appeal. That appeal was then reversed based on this reasoning: The JW Employee had advised the employer at the time of hire that she would not perform specific tasks because of her religious beliefs. The claimant took reasonable steps to protect her employment by suggesting alternative arrangements to the employer. Unemployment benefits cannot be denied because of conduct mandated by religious belief. The JW Employee voluntarily quit her job with good cause.

******************

ORISELMA MENDEZ v. RIO GRANDE RESTAURANT CORP was a 2005 case which was heard by the Kentucky Commission For Human Rights. This Jehovah's Witness alleged she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her sex and her religion. The restaurant denied all allegations, and asserted the complainant was not even on its payroll for failure to complete an employment application. The two parties agreed to settle. The restaurant agreed to pay the JW $5,000, comply with civil rights laws in the future, undergo civil rights compliance training, and report to the commission for three years with regard to such compliance.

******************

******************

In 1995, a Jehovah's Witness, named Karen L. Deady, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against a Riverside, California restaurant, in which Karen Deady alleged that she had been fired after she refused to sing "Happy Birthday" to customers. The employer responded that Deady had quit, rather than being fired, and that she did so after refusing to work at a position in which she would not have to sing the "pagan" song. Outcome unknown.

******************

A 1996 magazine article briefly mentions an incident involving an African-American Jehovah's Witness from Roseville, Michigan, named Georgette Evans. Georgette Evans supposedly refused to attend a co-workers birthday party, and was ridiculed by her co-workers. Her boss was also unsympathetic and gradually withdrew important projects from her charge. She was labeled a "woman with the attitude problem", and she later quit. Surrounding circumstances suggest that Evans likely attempted to file a complaint or lawsuit against her employer, but such is yet to be located.

******************

A 2002 Connecticut case involved an African-American Jehovah's Witness named Chele Jenkins, who was employed as a coordinator with a city school system. Jenkins' lawsuit for racial and religious discrimination claimed that her failure to pick up a birthday cake and to participate in a rally for increased educational funding outside the state Capitol led to her receiving poor job evaluations. Jenkins noted that her Jehovah's Witnesses religion prohibits her from celebrating birthdays or participating in political functions.

******************

O'MEARA-GARTMAN v. MAQUOKETA NEWSPAPER INC is a 2006 Iowa unemployment compensation case involving a Jehovah's Witness named Geneva O'Meara-Gartman, who had been employed by Maquoketa Newspaper from June 2001 until March 2006. The JW Employee worked full time in the composition department. On March 21, 2005, the advertising supervisor contacted the Production Manager at home and asked her to come into the office and talk with O'Meara-Gartman, who was very upset. The meeting lasted about 90 minutes during which time O'Meara-Gartman was a no-call/no-show to work March 22, 23 and 24, 2006. She decided she was too upset to come to work but could give no explanation as to why she did not call and notify the employer that she would be absent. She was aware of the provisions in the employee handbook which provides for separation from employment of any employee who is a no-call/no-show to work for three days. On Monday, March 27, 2006, she decided she did not intend to return to work but did not feel the employer was entitled to be notified of her decision. She did not think she would be able to do the work to the standard she would like to do it, even though she had never received any verbal or written disciplinary action for unsatisfactory work performance. In addition, she felt she was being treated differently because she had made it known last year that she suffered from bi-polar disorder, which had caused her to be absent from work on sick leave for a period of time in 2005. She had also changed her religion to Jehovah's Witnesses and made it known she no longer celebrated birthdays and then accused her co-workers of going out of their way to invite her to birthday celebrations in the office.

The claimant maintained that she was discharged in accordance with the policy in the handbook, which calls for separation from employment for any employee who is a no-call/no-show to work for three days. However, the record supports a finding that she voluntarily quit. The decision was based on her feelings of persecution from her co-workers because of her bi-polar disorder and her change in religion. But there is nothing in the record to support her contention that she was being constantly invited to birthday parties only after she announced her change in religion. There is also nothing to support her belief she was being prevented from working to the best of her ability by any other employee, and she acknowledged no one ever informed her that her work was not satisfactory. O'Meara-Gartman appears to have been overly sensitive to the work environment and her co-workers after making it known she had the bi-polar disorder and had changed her religion. However, "good cause" for leaving employment must be that which is reasonable to the average person, not to the overly sensitive individual or the claimant in particular. Her failure to come to work or report her absence to her employer for three days constitutes a voluntary quit without good cause, thus she was disqualified for benefits.

A recent 2007 court decision from Denmark is worth including here given the unique facts of the case, and that the Danish court ruled against the Jehovah's Witness Employee under that factual circumstance. Although Danish employment law is somewhat different from that in the United States, the facts of this case are such that an American court may very well have reached the same decision.

The employer of a low-level Jehovah's Witness Employee staged a birthday party at the worksite during regular business hours. Although unstated by the source, the honoree was probably an owner or upper-level manager. The JW Employee explained that she could/would not participate in birthday celebrations, and the JW Employee asked to be allowed to leave the premises when the party began. The employer refused permission. The JW left the premises anyway. The employer later attempted to issue the JW Employee a formal warning, but the JW Employee also refused to accept the warning. It is unclear whether the JW Employee then resigned, or was fired, but the JW Employee thereafter began legal proceedings in accordance with Danish law.

The Danish court ruled against the JW Employee. Evidently, the court "hung its hat" on the facts that the party was held on the jobsite during regular business hours, and that the party was attended by not only employees, but was also attended by clients and owners of the firm. Thus, the party was more than a simple office birthday celebration. Although not stated in the source summary, in all likelihood, the court probably felt that the low-level JW Employee could have remain present in the office at this "smoozing session" without directly participating in any "birthday party specifics" that would have violated WatchTower rules. Instead of leaving the premises, the JW Employee could have simply made herself scarce during the time when "specifics" occurred which she found objectionable.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES HATE THE HOLIDAY SEASON.

K.C.H.R. v. LESCO MFG was a 1987 case involving a Jehovah's Witness named Cari Hardin, which worked its way through several Kentucky courts and commissions. In December 1983, Lesco Design and Manufacturing Co. Inc., of La Grange, Kentucky, instructed all personnel to answer the telephone with the greeting, "Merry Christmas, Lesco." Cari Hardin immediately informed the president that the greeting would compromise her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness. He informed her that if she could not answer the phone as he instructed, he would write her a check. Hardin also consulted with her immediate supervisor and with the vice-president of the company. Both informed her that she must do as she was told. Later that day, Hardin was given a final check and she departed.

Cari Hardin filed a claim for unemployment benefits, in which she claimed to have been discharged. Lesco responded that she quit. In January 1984, the insurance examiner denied her benefits and found that Lesco's request was reasonable and that Hardin had voluntarily left her employment without just cause. The examiner's decision was not appealed, as Hardin found new employment in January. In March 1984, Cari Hardin filed her complaint with the Commission on Human Rights alleging religious discrimination. The commission found that Lesco had discriminated against Hardin and ordered it to cease its unlawful practice and to pay her back wages of $800.00 plus $250.00 as compensatory damage. The appeals court upheld such, including these informative legal comments:

"In order to establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination, one must prove that (1) he has a bona fide belief that compliance with an employment requirement is contrary to his religious faith; (2) he informed his employer about the conflict; and (3) he was discharged because of his refusal to comply with the employment requirement. ...

"Hardin testified that saying the greeting 'Merry Christmas' to another person, at any time or in any manner, would be considered by her as a violation of her religious beliefs. She was supported in this fact by the testimony of Robert Shane, an elder and member of the governing body of Hardin's Jehovah's Witnesses congregation. Hardin also supported her claim from exhibits taken from publications of Jehovah's Witnesses concerning the prohibition against the observance of Christmas.

"There is no question concerning the fact that Lesco's officers and Hardin's immediate supervisor were informed of the conflict between the instructions and Hardin's religious beliefs. Hardin sought to obtain some accommodation, but Lesco offered none. The record also appears clear that Lesco could have accommodated Hardin's religious beliefs without undue hardship to its business. This could have been accomplished by not requiring her to answer the phone during this season or she could have merely answered with the greeting 'Good Morning, Lesco'.

"Once a prima facie case has been established, as in Hardin's situation, the respondent, Lesco, must then prove that an accommodation to the claimant's beliefs will result in some undue hardship. This was not done. ... [Past precedent] ruled that more than a de minimis cost in the form of either lost efficiency or wages constitutes undue hardship which will relieve an employer of its duty to accommodate the religious beliefs of its employees. ...

"... An overwhelming majority of citizens in this country observe the Christmas season as either a religious or national holiday, but the record clearly indicates that such observation and celebration is against the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. While many people would consider that the mere statement or greeting of 'Merry Christmas' would not endorse Christmas, any more than a Christian wishing a Jew a 'Happy Hanukkah' endorses the Jewish faith, Hardin nevertheless satisfactorily proved that her statement would compromise her beliefs. It would not have been unreasonably difficult for Lesco to have accommodated Hardin in her beliefs, and the commission so found. If the commission's findings are based on statutes, law, and substantial evidence of probative value, its determinations must be supported."

**************

GREEN v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE was a 1999-2000 Maryland federal court case which involved an African-American Jehovah's Witness named Tamara R. Green. After refusing to dress up as a "Hershey Kiss" for Halloween, Green was transferred from Saks Fifth Avenue Distribution Company's Human Resources Department to their warehouse.  Thereafter, Green filed a religious discrimination lawsuit in federal District Court.  In 2000, the USDC summarily dismissed Green's lawsuit - evidently because the employer had simply transferred Green to a position in which she would not be required to dress up for holidays.

**************

In December 2002, a Brooklyn, New York Jehovah's Witness Kindergarten Teacher, named Ingrid Attio, who taught at Public School 179 in Kensington, was brought up on "disciplinary charges", after she refused to put up a multi-cultural holiday bulletin board outside her classroom. Outcome unknown.

The eloquent schoolteacher told a reporter, "It is stupid. If I wasn't teaching the children their letters or their numbers, yes, then discipline me. But for this? It is not normal. ... I don't think I should put up a Christmas tree. It is just pagan stuff. ... No one can be made to put up a Christmas tree. This is America."

Interestingly, Ingrid Attio, who had been a schoolteacher for 25 years, stated that she did not ask her students to draw Easter bunnies, Halloween jack-o'-lanterns, Christmas trees, nor what is often standard fare in schools for any holiday. One can't help but wonder how long this had been the case. Possibly, Attio was a recent convert to the JWs, especially given the following.

An unnamed school official charged that Ingrid Attio was "no victim". Instead, Ingrid Attio allegedly was forcing her own WatchTower beliefs on her students. The school official supposedly knew such because the issue came to light after, "We had angry parents asking why their children were told Christmas trees and a creche were barbaric pagan rituals."

**************

PALMER v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO was a 1978-9 Illinois federal appellate court decision which involved a Jehovah's Witness Teacher, named Joethelia Palmer. Palmer was hired at the Field School in September, 1976, as a full-time non-tenured teacher. Prior to commencement of the 1976-77 school year, Palmer visited with Florence Paskind, the school's Principal, to inform her that due to her sincerely held religious convictions, Palmer would not teach "anything having to do with love of country, the flag and other patriotic matters."  In deference to those convictions, Paskind met with Palmer and instituted certain procedures to accommodate her.

During the course of the school year, Paskind permitted a "team teacher", a student teacher and, in certain instances, parent volunteers to instruct the children on matters of patriotism. For various reasons, all of those methods proved infeasible. During this period, Palmer refused to lead activities related to holidays like Columbus Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas. At times, when no other aid was available, she allowed her five-year-old students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on their own. According to Paskind, the results of such a practice were chaotic. Palmer's teaching behavior failed in other respects. She overemphasized or ignored certain areas, failed to use toys provided, failed to prepare adequate lesson plans, and was otherwise disorganized. During the school year, Paskind received complaints from parents concerning the fact that their children were not receiving the same instruction that other classes had received, and that if Palmer were to remain teachings at the school, they would hesitate to enroll their children in kindergarten there.

Palmer was eventually terminated, and thereafter sought an injunction claiming a violation of her First Amendment rights. The Illinois USDC granted the School Board a summary judgment. On Palmer's appeal, the USCA affirmed, stating in part:

Plaintiff states the issue to be whether or not a public school teacher in her classes has the right to refuse to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance, the singing of patriotic songs, and the celebration of certain national holidays when to do so is claimed to violate her religious principles. The issue is more correctly stated to be whether or not a public school teacher is free to disregard the prescribed curriculum concerning patriotic matters when to conform to the curriculum she claims would conflict with her religious principles.

... ...

Plaintiff in seeking to conduct herself in accordance with her religious beliefs neglects to consider the impact on her students who are not members of her faith. Because of her religious beliefs, plaintiff would deprive her students of an elementary knowledge and appreciation of our national heritage. She considers it to be promoting idolatry, it was explained during oral argument, to teach, for instance, about President Lincoln and why we observe his birthday. However, it would apparently not offend her religious views to teach about some of our past leaders less proudly regarded. There would only be provided a distorted and unbalanced view of our country's history. Parents have a vital interest in what their children are taught. Their representatives have in general prescribed a curriculum. There is a compelling state interest in the choice and adherence to a suitable curriculum for the benefit of our young citizens and society. It cannot be left to individual teachers to teach what they please. Plaintiff's right to her own religious views and practices remains unfettered, but she has no constitutional right to require others to submit to her views and to forego a portion of their education they would otherwise be entitled to enjoy. In this unsettled world, although we hope it will not come to pass, some of the students may be called upon in some way to defend and protect our democratic system and Constitutional rights, including plaintiff's religious freedom. That will demand a bit of patriotism.

 

**************

BEIN v. WARRENSBURG CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT was a 1976 New York case. Claudia S. Bein was hired as a kindergarten teacher in Januray 1973. In October 1975, Claudia Bein held a meeting with all her "room mothers" to announce that she had converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses, and as a result, Bein stated that she would no longer participate in patriotic or holiday activities. Bein told the room mothers that if they wanted such activities to continue that they would have to perform all the duties that Bein had previously performed in connection with such. (Readers should recall that at that time the WatchTower Society was predicting Armageddon to occur in October 1975.)

Bein's announcement created quite an uproar. Claudia Bein was notified by the School Superintendent that she was being terminated effective at the end of the year, because of numerous complaints received from parents. Bein argued that her actions had no impact on the students, because the room mothers could continue the "forbidden" activities. The Superintendent pointed out, as probably had the parents, that Bein was teaching their children WatchTower religious beliefs by default, in that the young impressionable children observed Bein refusing to participate in certain activities, and wondered why.

Claudia Bein received support from the New York State United Teachers, who assisted her with filing a complaint with the EEOC. Bein also filed a formal complaint with the New York Education Commission, which proceeded to rule in Bein's favor. The State Education Commissioner ordered the School District to retain bein through the Spring semester and the following Fall semester, plus required a 60 day notice if Bein was then to be terminated in December 1976. The Commissioner also indicated that if Bein was terminated that they would closely scrutize such to determine whether any of Bein's constitutional rights had been violated.

Those NY Idiots stated that Bein could not be fired for exercising her "freedom of religion" without a showing that her actions caused "substantial disruption" in the classroom. The Commission indicated that the local Board needed to observe Bein for two semesters to determine such. The Commission also indicated that so long as Bein taught the words to the Pledge, and allowed such to be recited by her students, that that was all that was necessary. And, so long as the room mothers performed all the other duties with regard to holidays, etc., that there was no negative impact. The Commission even stated that Christmas gift exchanges were a "religious" activity. Unknown what happened in Fall 1976.

**************

VELEZ-SOTOMAYOR v. PROGRESO CASH AND CARRY, INC. was a federal lawsuit filed in Puerto Rico in 2001 by a Jehovah's Witness named Maricely Vélez-Sotomayor. Vélez-Sotomayor was employed as a part-time cashier at a supermarket. The employer required employees to wear Santa hats during the 1999 Christmas holiday season. Vélez-Sotomayor refused based on her Jehovah's Witness beliefs. She was suspended on November 30 until the holiday season ended. She filed a charge before the Anti-Discrimination Unit against Progreso on December 9, 1999, alleging discrimination based upon religion. Vélez was declared eligible for unemployment benefits on December 22, 1999. Vélez returned to Progreso after Three Kings Day (January 6, 2000) and requested work hours. She was informed that she was no longer needed as they were in a slow season. Vélez filed a federal lawsuit in May 2001, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, several applicable Puerto Rico laws. In 2003, the USDC denied the employer's motion to dismiss, so this case evidently went to trial, if not settled prior to. Results unknown.

**************

EEOC v. THE ADVOCATE MESSENGER is a highly amusing case. A Jehovah's Witness, named Donovan Moore, filed a federal lawsuit in 2000-1 alleging religious discrimination against his newspaper employer in Danville, Kentucky. It seems that the newspaper had historically held an annual combination Christmas and Company Awards banquet. Citing his beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness, Moore informed his employer that he could not attend the 1998 banquet. Since Moore was a District Manager, the newspaper agreed that Moore could skip everything but the awards portion of the event. Next year, Moore had been promoted to Home Delivery Manager. Part of the new job responsibilities was to organize the annual banquet. Moore did so, but then refused to even attend the awards portion. Moore was fired, and he subsequently filed a federal lawsuit.

The District Court summarily dismissed Moore's lawsuit citing Moore's failure to show that the carrier banquet conflicted with his personal beliefs. The court noted that Moore had taken charge of planning the party. Moore had secured the location for the party, selected carriers to receive awards, and distributed invitations labeling the banquet as a carrier Christmas party. The court wrote: "Given the options to avoid any reference to Christmas, Moore chose not to do so. Rather, Moore hoisted himself with his own petard, ensnaring himself in a Christmas party of his own design."

**************

JONES v. C.H.E. PHARMACY was a 2001 Canadian case (laws are similar to those in the U.S.), in which a Jehovah's Witness named Raymond Jones worked for Shoppers Drug Mart from 1982 to 1998. Jones' personal interpretation of WatchTower teachings allowed him to stock shelves with Christmas merchandise, but forbade him from decorating the store for Christmas. For sixteen years, his employer accommodated his religious beliefs.

However, in November 1998, his supervisor asked him to hang a garland. Jones complied, but later stated that he felt sick inside. A few days later, the manager asked him to hang a Santa Claus decoration. This time Jones refused, claiming that his religious beliefs prohibited him from doing so. Five days later, he refused the same supervisor's request to set out six potted poinsettas in front of the store, which would serve as combination decorations and merchandise for sale.

That same day, Jones was called into a meeting with the owner of the store who told him to set out the poinsettas or face termination. Jones refused, and walked out and never returned. Jones then filed a religious discrimination complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that Jones had been constructively fired by the owner's ultimatum, and that Jones had suffered illegal religious discrimination. Jones was awarded $21,243.56 in lost wages; $4710.40 in lost vacation time; $1142.00 in expenses; and $3500.00 in damages caused to Jones' feelings, dignity, and self-respect.

**************

WATSON v. ADECCO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES was a 2000-3 federal lawsuit filed in Florida by two African-American and Hispanic Jehovah's Witnesses named Violet Watson and Pamella Marriot. In November 1999, Watson and Marriot were placed by a temporary employment placement service as cafeteria servers in a Brevard County school. In December 1999, Christmas decorations were put up and Christmas music was played in the School's cafeteria. Along with the other cafeteria employees, Watson and Marriot were instructed to wear Santa hats as part of their work uniforms. When they refused, the placement service negotiated with the School Board for an "accommodation" to wear red baseball caps instead of the Santa hats. (Watson and Marriot also complained about the Xmas decorations and music.) However, on the day the accommodation was to take effect, each of the JWs received a phone call from the placement service advising them not to report to work at the school because "they don’t want you anymore." The service also allegedly told the JWs that the placement service would place them in other positions after the holidays or in a place that did not celebrate Christmas.

Watson and Marriot each separately filed a federal lawsuit against both the placement agency and the School Board alleging both racial (later dropped) and religious discrimination, but later agreed to consolidate. However, the District Court summarily dismissed the consolidated lawsuit because the School Board had agreed to an "accomodation", and the placement agency was not their employer, and otherwise had done nothing actionable under Title VII.

**************

**************

**************

A webpage discussing discrimination scenarios (which were supposedly based on actual occurrences) mentions the case of a custodian who was a Jehovah's Witness who refused to set up tables and chairs in a conference room being decorated for a Christmas dinner. He explained to his supervisor that his religion prohibited him from participating in Christmas or other "pagan" holiday celebrations. If that custodian was penalized in any way, he would have a cause of action against that employer.

**************

COLORADO v. GOAD, COLORADO v. KEMP, and COLORADO v. BONES were related 2004-5 Colorado criminal court cases. On December 13, 2004, three "overaged juvenile" Jehovah's Witnesses, named Levi Bones, 23, Richard Kemp, 26, and Nathan Goad, 29, vandalized a 9 foot tall Menorah, which had been erected in Aspen's Paepcke Park as part of the local Jewish community's celebration of Hanukkah. Per Jewish tradition, the lights on the Menorah are lit individually during each of the eight days of Hanukkah. The ignorant Jehovah's Witness "juveniles" stated that they thought that the Menorah was a "broken Christmas ornament", because not all of its lights were lit, as if they would have had the right to destroy such. Arresting police officers stated that some of the trio had been drinking. Goad and Kemp pleaded "guilty", and were fined and placed on two years probation, plus ordered to pay for the damages. Bones initially declined to plead guilty. Outcome of his case is unknown.

**************

The following question was posted in 2006 on MONSTER.COM's employment related discussion board:

"Five months ago I hired a young (mid 20s) guy knowing he was a [Jehovah's Witness], he has two 6 yr old twin daughters just starting school. This guy thinks the world should revolve around him and his family and he Is not shy about making fun of people who celebrate holidays or birthdays. I have had several employees ask me "whats up" with him? I have told people of his faith and asked them to respect his beliefs. This guy has tried to bait me Into a debate about religion and moral beliefs, and he makes fun"out loud" of the corporate parties and celebrations. I have reminded him of all the wars and people that have died fighting about religion, and that I have heard enough. He wont stop, what to do now?"

"I'm Jewish, but I don't consider it offensive when someone wishes me a merry xmas. I'm happy that people are spreading joy during the Winter season, and they certainly have the best of intentions. But I once made the mistake of wishing Happy Holidays to a Jehovah's Witness at my work, and she was very offended. We certainly can't please everyone, but I found this to be way over the top. I made sure to wish her a Happy Birthday the next year, which I'm sure she didn't appreciate."

RECOMMENDED READING:

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Problem of Mental Illness

The Theocratic War Doctrine: Why Jehovah's Witnesses Lie In Court

<<<------PREVIOUS PAGE----------HOME PAGE----------NEXT PAGE ------>>>

JW LAWSUITS - Page 1

Web Hosting · Blog · Guestbooks · Message Forums · Mailing Lists
Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Site Building Articles · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by bravenet.com