Starting back in the mid 1930s, the Watch Tower Society started forbidding Jehovah's Witnesses to salute the American Flag, or recite the Pledge Of Allegiance, or stand for the playing of the National Anthem, or engage in any other patriotic activity. All of the Watchtower's reasons for such are too lengthy and complex to discuss on this page, so are discussed in related webpages on this website, or linked therefrom. Only "part" of the reasoning is that the Flag is a false idol, and doing any of the above is "worshiping" a false idol.

For example, generally, no loyal Jehovah's Witness would ever consider the possibilty of performing the duty of raising or lowering the American Flag at their place of employment. However, a few years ago, the Watch Tower Society published that some previously forbidden employment activities could be performed by Jehovah's Witnesses, so long as the forbidden act only constituted an incidental part of the JW Employee's total job duties, and the performing of such act does not offend the JW Employee's conscience, nor offend the conscience of any other Jehovah's Witness who might observe the act.

Although the Watch Tower Society never admitted to such, some observers speculate that the Watch Tower Society's strict rules on such matters was hurting its' recruiting efforts with certain persons in certain economic and educational categories who worked in certain job categories.This rule change also applied to raising or lowering the American Flag at a JW Employee's place of employment, since it most often prohibited Jehovah's Witnesses who worked as janitors from working for upscale higher-paying employers (who had flagpoles). Since raising and lowering the American Flag is always incidental to an employee's main job duties, the rule change now essentially always permits a JW Employee to raise and lower the American Flag, so long as such does not offend that JW Employee's conscience, or the conscience of any other Jehovah's Witness who might observe them doing such. However, what the rule change did not change was the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses still view American Flags as evil objects. Can you anticipate the potential problems with JW Employees?

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

E.E.O.C. v. ALLIANCE RENTAL CENTER, L.P. d/b/a AARON RENTS is an ongoing 2009 Texas federal court case which was filed by the EEOC on behalf of a male Jehovah's Witness named Tyler Templeton. Alliance Rental Center operates an "Aaron Rents" franchise in Bridgeport, Texas.

Tyler Templeton, who was employed by Aaron Rents as a product technician, alleged that he was initially reprimanded and eventually fired when he refused to participate in the franchisee’s “Red Shirt Friday” dress code -- a store practice intended to show support for the U.S. Military. Templeton alleged that he informed his supervisors about his WatchTower religious beliefs and his observance of neutrality on issues of war and the military, which prohibited him from wearing the company-provided red shirts on Fridays.

The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief to ensure that no further discrimination takes place.

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

E.E.O.C. v. DWW PARTNERS LLP d/b/a RIGHT HONDA. EEOC filed this federal lawsuit on behalf of a Jehovah's Witness named Dale Long, who worked as an auto salesperson in Scottsdale, Arizona. The lawsuit charged that the JW Employee was regularly harassed and subjected to a hostile working environment by managers and co-workers throughout his five months of employment because of his religious beliefs.

The lawsuit alleged that three managers verbally and physically assaulted Long after they objected to the way Long lowered the U.S. flag from the dealership's flagpole on September 29, 2001 (only a few days after 9/11). The managers supposedly demanded that Long sing the “Star Spangled Banner”, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or be fired. Long's refusal eventually turned into a physical fight with two of the managers. Long did not return to work, and rejected an offer by the employer to work at another affiliated dealership. The three managers were either suspended or fired, but two of them eventually returned to work.

The dealership settled the lawsuit the same day the lawsuit was filed. The Jehovah's Witness received $20,000 in back pay, $42,500 in emotional distress damages, $50,000 for physical injuries, and a detailed written apology from the corporate president. EEOC also required the corporation to provide workplace training and to develop policies concerning unlawful harassment and unlawful termination based on "religion".

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

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

LOPEZ v. MEXICAN AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY FOUNDATION was a 1999-2000 California lawsuit involving a Jehovah's Witness named Sylvia Lopez. Lopez worked as a teacher's aide. She said she was fired for refusing on religious grounds to salute the U.S. flag. "Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to salute the flag because the salute is considered a form of worship ... ." Outcome unknown, but predictably in Lopez's favor.

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

ROWELL v. LINCOLN was a 1995 Louisiana federal court case involving a Jehovah's Witness named Lezlie Rowell. Rowell got into a dispute with Lincoln Parish school officials after she would neither recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor salute the American flag. She subsequently sued, saying a failing grade in student teaching kept her from getting her education certification. The USDC ruled in her favor. $$$$ unknown.

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

There are many, many "former" Jehovah's Witnesses who have and are currently playing professional sports. There are and have been only a few professional athletes who have made an issue of their WatchTower mandated beliefs.

*** 

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

FOURNIER v. NEW BEDFORD SCHOOL COMMITTEE was a 1980 Massachusetts lawsuit involving a Jehovah's Witness named Debra L. Fournier, of Middleborough, Massachusetts.  Fournier, 25,  filed a lawsuit against the New Bedford Massachusetts School Committee seeking reinstatement to her position as an elementary school  music teacher. Fournier had been fired for insubordination after refusing to teach patriotic or religious songs, refusing to pledge allegiance to the American flag, and refusing to stand for the National Anthem.  Fournier stated that doing these things were "acts of worship" in which her Jehovah's Witnesses religion would not permit her to engage. A Jehovah's Witness pursuing a career as a music teacher makes as much sense as the JW that wanted to be a Washington state trooper in 2002. (See "LAWSON v. STATE OF WASHINGTON" elsewhere on this website.)

GAVIN v. PEOPLES NATURAL GAS CO. was a 1978 case involving an African-American Jehovah's Witness named Charles Gavin. Gavin was employed as a service operator at the Peoples Natural Gas Company in Monongahela, Pennsylvania. When assigned the task of raising and lowering the company's American Flag, Gavin refused due to a conflict with his religious convictions. Gavin was fired on May 19, 1974, so on June 4, 1974, he filed religious discrimination complaints with both the EEOC and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission alleging, respectively, violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The PHRC conducted an administrative hearing after attempts at conciliation failed. Following the hearing, the PHRC on August 27, 1976, issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered an opinion and order dismissing the Gavin's complaint. The PHRC held that the testimony of an Elder of Gavin's congregation established that the Gavin's refusal was not required by religious creed, that the belief of plaintiff was therefore not protected under the Pennsylvania Act, and that the complaint would therefore be dismissed. Gavin sought review of the PHRC's decision in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, but this appeal was dismissed by the court in February 1977, due to his failure to file the record of his case within the time limit previously set by the court.

The EEOC issued a "right to sue" notice in November 1977. Thereafter, Gavin filed a federal lawsuit under Title VII alleging that his former employer discriminated against him because of "his religion, his conscientious convictions, as well as his race." The USDC summarily dismissed the "race discrimination" claim on the grounds that race discrimination had not been asserted in Gavin's claims before the EEOC. The USDC also dismissed Gavin's other "claims" due to the testimony of Gavin's Jehovah's Witness Elder, stating: "The plaintiff here asserts that since his religion views flags as false idols, his employer was required to accommodate to his refusal to raise and lower the American flag. In the proceedings on this claim before the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, an elder of the plaintiff's congregation testified as an expert on the beliefs which were held by members of their religion. The Pennsylvania Commission then found itself in the awkward—and, we believe, constitutionally prohibited—position of determining what belief the plaintiff could assert as a bona fide religious belief. The Opinion issued by the Commission explained: 'It is important to note that the complainant specifically invokes the protection of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act as a member of the '"Jehovah's Witness religious organization."' Accordingly, the deposition of Mr. John DeGregorio, an elder of the complainant's congregation, is entitled to great weight. Mr. DeGregorio's testimony as well as the Stipulation of Facts, compel the Commission's conclusion that the complainant's conviction is not part of the Jehovah's Witness religious creed since the complainant was never requested to participate in any flag ceremony, but merely to perform the job duty of raising and lowering the flag. The implication of this conclusion is that under an act prohibiting religious discrimination in employment, only religious beliefs which are part of a recognized creed are protected. But what if two experts were called and they disagreed on what beliefs were acceptable in a given sect? What if there were majority and minority views of what beliefs were acceptable? These are not merely academic questions, because we have before us a complainant who asserts a religious belief which has been questioned by his employer and which has, in a prior proceeding, been adjudicated not to be a valid religious belief. At a minimum, were this case to be tried, we would have to determine whether the belief asserted is to be characterized as a 'religious' belief, and whether such a belief, which may be outside the standardized creed of his faith, is protected under the Act."

The testimony of the "Elder" (minister) from Gavin's own JW congregation that Gavin's refusal to raise and lower the company's American Flag was not required by Watchtower rules blew Gavin's case in both forums. Either the Elder's testimony confused the PHRC hearing officers, or the Elder testified in "JW-speak". "JW-speak" is when a JW says something understood by non-JWs to be one thing, but understood by Jehovah's Witnesses to be the exact opposite.

For example, about ten years or so ago, Jehovah's Witnesses were fighting in one of the European Human Rights Courts for official recognition as a "religion" in Bulgaria. Bulgaria made it clear that they would never formally recognize Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion so long as the Watch Tower Society prohibited Bulgarian Jehovah's Witnesses from accepting blood transfusions. The Watch Tower Society "cleverly" responded in writing that they would no longer "disfellowship" (excommunicate) any Bulgarian JW who accepted a blood transfusion. Bulgaria thought they had "won", and issued formal recognition to the Watch Tower Society. As soon as such was in hand, the Watch Tower Society issued a letter to Bulgarian congregations that it would no longer be necessary to "disfellowship" (excommunicate) any Bulgarian JW who accepted a blood transfusion, because henceforth, any Bulgarian JW who accepted a blood transfusion would automatically be considered as having submitted their resignation as a JW.

In the instance of the testimony of Gavin's Elder, that Elder may very well have felt pressured during testimony, and he may have decided to "code" his testimony. It is not unusual for JWS to publicly state that the Watch Tower Society does not require JWs to do anything ... be it avoid holiday celebrations, accept blood transfusions, not recite the Pledge, etc. Non-JWs do not understand what other JWs understand that JW to mean. What that JW means, when they state that JWs are not required to do something actually required by Watchtower rules, is that any JW has the "free will" to resign from being a JW, or the "free will" to disobey the Watch Tower Society and suffer the punishment of being excommunicated. If you have read this far in my website, you know that 99.99% of JWs would rather die first. Saying JWs are not "required" to obey Watchtower rules is technically true, but practically false.

Employers should keep in mind that GAVIN was an older decision, and since then it has become settled law that it is the employee's personal convictions that count, NOT the creed of the religious organization, so long as the employee truly and honestly believes such.

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

BACHER v. CITY OF NORTH RIDGEVILLE was a 1975 Ohio state court case involving a Jehovah's Witness named Gary Bacher, who refused to raise the American Flag in front of the Ohio fire station where he was employed as a fireman. Bacher was employed in 1971, and regularly performed the flag raising duty when he was so assigned. However, when Bacher converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses in 1974, he refused to raise the flag due to his new beliefs. After Bacher's third refusal, he was terminated. Supported by the ACLU, Bacher filed suit. The lower courts ruled against him, but the appellate court ruled: (1) Freedom to act on behalf on one's religious beliefs may not be curtailed absent a compelling state interest. (2) A city may not discharge a Jehovah's Witness from his employment as a fireman for his refusal to comply with regulations requiring him to raise the national flag, absent a showing that such refusal threatens the morale, efficiency, discipline, and authority of the fire department. Bacher was reinstated with full backpay.

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

MITCHELL v. PHILADELPHIA was a 1972-6 Pennsylvania federal court case involving a Jehovah's Witness named David Mitchell. Mitchell was fired after he refused to salute the American flag at a football game. The City was ordered to rehire Mitchell and pay him four years backpay. The City also agreed that Mitchell does not need to take blood transfusions if he gets sick.

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

MORGAN v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION was a 1944 New Jersey state Supreme Court case which involved a Jehovah's Witness named Daniel Morgan. Morgan was employed by the N.J. Motor Vehicle Department. In 1939, World War II was ongoing in Europe, and the country was under tons of stress as it anticipated entry. When Morgan's two high school aged sons refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at school, such created quite a local stir. Morgan's supervisor pressured Morgan to have his sons salute the American Flag. He refused, and indicated that he would not do so himself. He was fired. When he applied for a job at the Bergen County Board of Freeholders, he was told that his refusal to salute the flag disqualified him for any civil service position. Back by the ACLU, Morgan sued and eventually won.

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

"If you weren't so dumb, you would do a little investigating and become [Jehovah's] Witnesses yourself."

JWs REFUSE TO SWEAR OATHS TO NON-JW INSTITUTIONS

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

BESSARD v. CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES was a 1994 federal California court case which involved an African-American Mother and Daughter pair of Jehovah's Witnesses named Lanell Bessard and Tanella Bridges.  Mother and Daughter had each sought non-professional employment at the Fresno City College campus. Both failed to make it past the initial screening phase in the college's hiring process due to the fact that they answered "NO" to the question on the college's standard job application form that stated: "Prior to employment, are you willing to swear or affirm allegiance to the United States and to the State of California?" This travesty of justice ended up costing the taxpayers $259,098.00.

Bessard and Bridges brought claims in federal court against the Community College District, alleging that their rights under the First Amendment and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been abridged. While the court could have considered whether or not actions could have been taken by the college to reasonably accomodate the women's religious beliefs under Title VII, the Bessard court chose to address their claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This was due to the court's finding that the decision would obviate the need to subsequently address the plaintiff's statutory claims under Title VII and constitutional claims under the First Amendment. That court ruled that Bessard's and Bridges' free exercise rights had indeed been violated, which shifted the burden to the College to prove that it had both a compelling governmental interest in enforcing the policy and that the oath was the least restrictive means available to it to pursue this interest. The College stated two compelling interests. First, state law required the oath. Second, the College contended that it had "a compelling interest in ensuring employee loyalty and trustworthiness." The court renounced the College's first argument, finding that this rationale would lead to every state law being immune from attack on constitutional grounds, leaving individuals with hollow constitutional protections. With regard to their second argument, the court found that the oath was "not the least restrictive means of furthering the goal of having a loyal work force." That court expected the College to somehow prove that employees who take a loyalty oath were more loyal than those who did not. The court stated that the College could better develop and enforce employee loyalty through proper and prudent administration. The court found California's loyalty oath to be of little value in promoting worker loyalty among those who would object on religious grounds. In the end, the court found in favor of the two Jehovah's Witnesses and enjoined the College from requiring them to take the oath as a precondition of employment. In a jury determination of the damges suffered by the two Jehovah's Witnesses, they were awarded $259,098.00.

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

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

ANDERSON v. FRANK was a 1986-93 Wisconsin federal court case. In November 1986, a Jehovah's Witness, named William Anderson, 32, of Sussex, Wisconsin, was hired as an engineman at the Milwaukee branch of the United States Postal Service. However, Anderson refused to take the USPS oath of office, because it violated WatchTower rules, and he was fired about one month later.

In accordance with USPS employment disputes, in 1990, the Commission ruled that the USPS would not incur "undue hardship" by "reasonably accommodating" a Jehovah's Witness who objected to the term "defend", and the clause, "I will bear true faith and allegiance to ... ."  The Commission ordered USPS to eliminate the religious conflict by deleting the "objectionable parts" of the USPS oath.

Apparently, that was not enough for William Anderson, because the media was reporting another lawsuit backed by the  American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In all likelihood, Anderson, who had worked for only about one month in 1986, was probably seeking "back wages" for the 4-5 years when he did not work. What do you want to bet that he did not receive most of such?

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

Date unknown, the University of South Florida fired a typist named Mary Bell, because she refused to sign a loyalty oath due to her Jehovah's Witness beliefs. Details are unclear, but it is thought that Bell now lives in the Chancellor's mansion supervising various Deans who drop in between classes to do her typing for her.

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

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

In 1997, President Clinton issued "Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Freedom in the Federal Workplace", which include: "An applicant for employment in a governmental agency who is a Jehovah's Witness should not be compelled, contrary to their religious beliefs, to take a loyalty oath whose form is religiously objectionable."

HALL v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Despite Clinton's 1997 Guidelines, in 2000, a Jehovah's Witness named Michelle Hall was fired from Fort Belvoir, in Virginia. The produce worker stated that reciting "I will bear true faith and allegiance to" the U.S. Constitution conflicted with her duty to give "Jehovah" her undivided loyalty. Hall obtained the legal assistance of the ACLU, which negotiated a settlement that reinstated Hall and gave her back wages and $9,000 in attorneys' fees. More importantly, the settlement allows Hall to forego the government's loyalty oath, and instead, simply promise that she "will be a loyal citizen of the United States." Interestingly, Hall had previously signed the same Oath on multiple occasions during the ten year period that she had worked a series of temporary part-time jobs at Fort Belvoir. It wasn't until Hall was hired full-time that she complained.

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

As an example of how some Jehovah's Witnesses are able to rationalize away historic Watchtower teachings so as to be able to take advantage of certain "career opportunities", contrast the following scenario with the above JWs who "suffered" for their beliefs. In 2005, a Century 21 Realty agent in Gary, Indiana, named Christopher Turner, was "appointed" by the Mayor as a boardmember of the Gary Housing Authority. This "appointment" created quite a stir in Gary, Indiana political circles, because nearly everyone considered this to be a political position filled by political appointment. Why so controversial? Turner was a Jehovah's Witness. This kinda makes one wonder why hundreds of Jehovah's Witnesses in Malawi, Africa allowed themselves to be raped and murdered in the 1960-70s because the Watch Tower Society told them that they were not allowed to carry that country's political party card and still be a JW. I can't help but wonder if an "appointment" as a boardmember of the Gary Housing Authority requires a person to take an "oath"? Or, does a boardmember of the Gary Housing Authority carry any kind of "card" which identifies themself as such?

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

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

JW EMPLOYEES & PATRIOTISM

Web Hosting · Blog · Guestbooks · Message Forums · Mailing Lists
Easiest Website Builder ever! · Build your own toolbar · Free Talking Character · Email Marketing
powered by bravenet.com