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


Karl E. Asmus, 72, passed away on Saturday, November 20, 2021 ... Karl retired from G.E. Power Systems where he worked as a welder for Local 301 IUECWA for many years and continued to serve as treasurer for the Pensioners Committee Local 301 up until days prior to his passing. Karl ran his own welding business following retirement from G.E. for several years until he closed it down to focus on his gunsmithing and reloading business, of which he was a distinguished expert in his field. Karl's favorite things to do were hunting, listening to great music, spending time with his friends and family and participating in his ministry. Karl was the patriarch of his entire family. There will be no public services. Karl believed in the resurrection to everlasting life through his death as promised to him by Jehovah God through his son, Jesus Christ. He spent his time on Earth proving his dedication by doing the will of his God, Jehovah. Please remember him fondly, deeply and be joyous, "for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord." - Romans 6:23.


Given the WatchTower Society's supposed "neutral position" in all things "worldly", and given the info discussed below, we found it particularly interesting that in July 1969 that both the Associated Press and UPI reported that at the request of Cesar Chavez, director of the United Farm Workers of America, the WatchTower Society had agreed to join in the then ongoing nationwide UFWA GRAPE BOYCOTT, and that it was canceling all orders of California-grown grapes to be supplied to its concessions at its remaining summer Conventions scattered across the United States.


Epifanio Camacho, a self-described major player in the formation of the United Farm Workers of America, in his autobiography, THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A COMMUNIST: COMMUNISTS ARE MADE NOT BORN, related that his wife was a Jehovah's Witness who supported him in his efforts, and that he himself was "a sympathizer with the Jehovah's Witnesses", who had not become an "official member" only because of his goals and work in the UFWA.


Born in 1904, Ted F. Silvey was reared by a converted Jehovah's Witness Mother, and sometime during the 1920s, volunteered as a BETHELITE at WatchTower World HQ, in Brooklyn, New York, where he learned to be a printer. Silvey returned to Ohio in the early 1930s, and found a job as a printer in Columbus, Ohio, where Silvey started engaging in union activities. Ted Silvey became "Editor" of the LABOR TRIBUNE in 1935, "Director" of central Ohio's Non-Partisan League in 1936, and an officer in Ohio's CIO in 1937, which meant that Silvey was immersed in not only local union activities and internal union politics, but also national union activities related to the formation of the AFL and CIO, as well as local, state, and national governmental politics.


BERNACINE BARNES v. COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, MONMOUTH COUNTY DIVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL is an ongoing 2017-20 New Jersey federal lawsuit involving a 55 year-old African-American Jehovah's Witness female named Bernacine Barnes. Beginning in May 1999, Bernacine Barnes worked as a clerk for MCDSS in the Customer Care Center, until she was fired in October 2017.

From February 2012 to July 2017, Barnes complained repeatedly alleging discriminatory treatment by her supervisors based on her race and religion, and that MCDSS refused to provide reasonable accommodations for a disability relating to her spine.

In March 2017, Barnes alleges that her supervisors humiliated her in front of her colleagues. When she wrote to her supervisor to memorialize the incident, she copied her union official on the email, and was subsequently written up for improper use of the computer to communicate with the Union. 

On March 30, 2017, Barnes met with two Union Officials and two supervisors from MCDSS to discuss the March 2017 events. Barnes alleges that the supervisors from MCDSS accused her of using inappropriate tones and language in her emails, and started to unilaterally amend the final record of the meeting.

On May 5, 2017, Barnes alleges that her local Union representative refused to provide representation during a disciplinary proceeding brought against her. On June 18, 2017, Barnes alleges that the state Union rep refused to provide representation during a disciplinary proceeding brought against her. Finally, on August 17, 2017, Barnes was suspended indefinitely without pay, and terminated from MCDSS on October 13, 2017.

Bernacine Barnes later filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but was issued a right to sue letter. Barnes thereafter brought this lawsuit alleging a full spectrum of violations of both state and federal anti-discrimination laws by MCDSS. Barnes also sued the CWA along with two Union officials for Breach of Duty of Fair Representation. The USDC summarily dismissed the claims against the CWA and its two officials ruling that Barnes failed to specify how had the CWA defendants acted in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner or lacked good faith when they failed to prosecute her grievances, and failed to provide her with a defense to the disciplinary actions brought against her.


JANET M. COLEMAN v. CITY OF WAUSAU was a 2014-18 Wisconsin federal employment discrimination lawsuit which involved a 55 year-old African-American Jehovah's Witness female. Janet Coleman was employed as a bus driver by Metro Ride, which provides public transit for Wausau. Coleman was hired in November 1999 and fired on June 3, 2014. During Coleman's employment, she was the only African American female employed by Metro Ride and one of the older employees. Bus drivers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the "Union" and the City. That CBA gives management "the sole right to operate its operations," including to discipline or discharge "for just cause," to "take whatever action [is] necessary to comply with State and Federal Law," and to "establish work rules."

From January 2010 through June 2014, Metro Ride issued 34 formal reprimands to bus drivers for tardiness or being absent without permission. Coleman received seven -- the most for any one employee. Over the course of Coleman's 14 year tenure, Coleman received 20 verbal reprimands, 18 written reprimands, and one suspension. By April 2014, Coleman had received at least four reprimands within the prior six-month period, and she was informed on April 23, 2014, that any additional formal reprimands before the middle of June would result in her termination.

Specifically, from the middle of December through the middle of April, Coleman received written or verbal reprimands for (1) failing to stop at a railroad crossing in violation of law, showing poor judgment; (2) failing to notice that the tail of her bus hit a disabled stationary vehicle; and (3) four instances of arriving to work late, ranging from one minute to twenty minutes late. In June 2014, Coleman was fired after the city learned that Coleman's commercial driver's license had been suspended, but Coleman continued driving the bus six times with the suspended license.

The Union filed a grievance on Coleman's behalf on June 12, 2014, which the City denied six days later. Coleman's statements during the grievance meeting confirmed her knowledge of the suspended license. Union then pursued "Step 2" of the grievance process on June 25, 2014, which was denied on August 1, 2014. The Union proceeded to "Step 3," which required review by the City's Human Resources Committee, but that appeal was considered untimely. City also denied Coleman's grievance on the merits. On October 5, 2014, the Union decided not to move the grievance onto "Step 4". Union members voted against proceeding, which would have required the Union to provide Coleman with an attorney.

Evidently, Janet Coleman thereafter filed with EEOC claims of discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability (diabetes) and religion. EEOC apparently dismissed Coleman's claims and issued to her a "right-to-sue" letter. Pro se plaintiff Janet Coleman filed this lawsuit thereafter, which included claims for a hostile work environment, retaliation, and for violation of her due process rights arising out of her termination. Coleman even attempted to add the Union as a defendant. In summer 2018, the USDC summarily dismissed this lawsuit in its entirety.


FLORINE HICKS v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY TRANSPORT SERVICE ET AL was a 2023 federal Wisconsin employment discrimination lawsuit which the USDC summarily dismissed without prejudice in August 2023 for failure to amend her complaint to state a federal claim.

Florine Hicks is a 70 year-old female African-American Jehovah's Witness, who is a "frequent flyer" in the Wisconsin judicial system. Hicks began working for MCTS in July 2019 as a bus operator, but was terminated in December 2020. Hicks was a member of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 998. Hicks began having problems with MCTS when the COVID-19 pandemic forced MCTS to implement various rules that drivers and passengers were expected to follow.

In a paragraph entitled "Age Discrimination," Florine Hicks alleges that on April 15, 2020, she was traveling from the north side of Milwaukee to the south side of Milwaukee when many people boarded her bus at a particular stop. Hicks alleges that she began to experience feelings of worry, nervousness, and uneasiness because of the risks of COVID to older individuals. Hicks alleges that one passenger asked whether the bus would be stopping at Miller Parkway. Hicks states that because of her fear and nervousness she was unable to think, causing her to answer that she was not sure. Hicks alleges that when she spoke those words, "it appeared as through [sic] the whole bus went in a rage." Hicks alleges that her supervisor did not consider her explanation that she was suffering from a COVID-related panic attack and issued her a violation of Rule No. 45, Discourtesy/Rudeness.

In a paragraph entitled "Disability Denied," Florine Hicks alleges that on August 27, 2020, she alerted MCTS of her medical condition requiring frequent or more urgent restroom breaks. Hicks alleges that on September 29, 2020, she needed to use the restroom so she stopped a long way from her designated bus stop to get to the bathroom faster. A passenger came and wanted to board the bus, but Hicks refused based on MCTS' stated policy that customer stops are to be made only at bus stops indicated by the company bus stop signs. Hicks alleges that she was suspended for three days for refusing to break MCTS' rule in not allowing the passenger to board in an undesignated area.

Florine Hicks alleges that in November 2020, MCTS adopted a COVID-related protocol that required passengers to enter the bus through the front door and exit through the back door. In a paragraph entitled "Retaliation, Unjust Prejudice Against Religion," Hicks alleges that on November 17, 2020, a passenger signaled that he wanted to get off the bus, so Hicks stopped the bus and opened the back door as instructed by MCTS. Hicks states that the passenger walked to the front of the bus and demanded the door be opened. Hicks refused to open the front door and instructed the passenger to exit through the back door. Hicks alleges the passenger became disruptive and rude and pulled out a gun, threatening to shoot the door off its hinges. Hicks again told the passenger to exit through the back door and noted he was being recorded by the cameras on the bus. The passenger then turned and walked to the back of the bus and exited through the rear door. Hicks subsequently called in sick the next day and did not return to work until December 7, 2020.

Florine Hicks alleges that the MCTS has an agreement with the Union to not discharge an employee while they are out sick (id.), so when she returned to work on December 7, 2020, she was discharged for violating Rule No. 15, Improper Conduct, by not letting the passenger exit through the front door. Hicks alleges that as a Jehovah's Witness, she believes that she must obey her boss' rules and instructions, and MCTS violated her rights by firing her when she was simply following MCTS' COVID protocols. Hicks further alleges that on December 7, 2020, she was issued a violation for Discourtesy/Rudeness for reprimanding a passenger who extracted several face masks upon entering the bus, dropping several on the floor.

Florine Hicks filed a grievance with the Union, who decided not to take her case to arbitration. On February 26, 2021, Hicks was awarded unemployment benefits; however, on January 28, 2022, LIRC issued a decision finding Hicks ineligible for benefits and requiring her to repay the erroneously paid benefits. DWD received a judgement for $19,100.00, but it apparently is uncollectible.


TAB QUENTIN EVANS v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS ET AL was a 2017-19 $50,000,000 Missouri federal employment discrimination lawsuit filed by a male Jehovah's Witness named Tab Q. Evans. Defendants included: United Brotherhood of Carpenters, St. Louis Carpenters District Council, St. Louis Carpenters Joint Apprenticeship Program, Carpenter's Union Local #97, Blanton Construction Co., and various Dept. of Labor affiliates.

Tab Evans is/was an apprentice carpenter and a member of the Union. Evans alleges generally that the defendants have engaged in, allowed, and/or covered up discrimination against him and others. In 2007, Evans filed a grievance letter complaining of discrimination and/or harassment by his employers and coworkers based on his WatchTower religion and on a perception that he was a homosexual. Evans further complains that he had been unable to get jobs and that the Union had given him poor references.

Evans alleges that UBC conducted an investigation over a period of more than a year, but instead of giving the results of the investigation to Evans, concealed its findings and referred Evans to its lawyers. Evans also alleges that at the outset of the investigation, he was told that they thought they "solved that problem" in St. Louis. Evans asserts that UBC may be covering up its findings of a local affiliate breaking laws and procedures barring discrimination.

Evans also alleges that CJAP and the Union neglected their responsibility toward the apprentice. Evans also alleges that the Union chose to look out for its Union contractors, provided no Union representation for him, and did not "look into the 15 years of 'promiscuous hiring and firings' to see if it's discrimination or not."

Evans further alleges that records show that Union staff admit to telling Union contractors in advance that he was a Jehovah's Witness, which resulted in Union carpenter employees threatening him that if he was a Jehovah's Witness, they would take actions that could maim, paralyze, or kill Evans. Evans alleges that this occurred within one to two minutes of his starting a new job, without his having said anything. That allegedly occurred when he was working for McBride Builders in October of 2003.

Evans alleges that although the Union's Apprenticeship Standards Agreement and various laws and rules require the Union to help him secure work, the Union told D.O.L. that it was not required to supply work. He also alleges that the Union has continued "to discriminately lie to particular individuals, to whom they chose, and NOT place them on jobs."

Evans also alleges that since his 2007 Grievance, the Union has changed its Collective Bargaining Agreement so that an individual only has ten days to file a grievance, which makes it easier to discriminate against individuals. He alleges that the Union tells employees that they are allowed to be fired under the contract, which permits employers to point to nondiscriminatory reasons for firing employees. Specifically, Evans alleges that Blanton Construction Co. sent a letter to Evans in which they attributed his firing to the fact that "employees all refuse to work with [Evans]." Evans asserts that the Union's failure to look into the matter permits discrimination to occur. Evans also suggests that "the employer" (presumably Blanton) was following the Union's lead in "wrongfully and discriminatorily firing the plaintiff."

Evans also appears to allege that the Union and/or CJAP have failed to meet their "Affirmative Action Plan prerequisites." He suggests generally that "discrimination against the plaintiff and discrimination against fellow St. Louis minorities, against whomsoever they choose to discriminate against, for their race, for their religion, for their gender, for their personal choices, whomsoever they dislike, is discrimination against the rest of society."

Filed in April 2017. Summarily dismissed in its entirety in July 2018 by USDC. Affirmed by USCA in May 2019. which performed de novo review, and agreed that Evans factual allegations failed to plausibly give rise to an inference of discrimination or retaliation.


RONALD E. JAMES v. GET FRESH PRODUCE INC. is an ongoing 2018-2020 Illinois federal employment discrimination lawsuit brought by a Chicago area African-American Jehovah's Witness named Ronald James. James is a "union" delivery truck driver, since 2007, who works Mondays-Saturdays. EEOC chose not to pursue James' allegations, instead issuing a Right-To-Sue Letter in April 2018.

Ronald James alleges that all African-American drivers are routinely mistreated by management -- being assigned the worst routes, the worst trucks, etc. A-A drivers are rudely spoken to -- when not ignored completely. Blah. Blah. Blah. The USDC has summarily dismissed both James' initial and re-alleged claims of racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

Ronald James further complains that employer has failed to accommodate him for requested days off to attend the WatchTower Cult's semi-annual Circuit Assembly/SAD, and interestingly, for the annual "Lord's Evening Meal", which is a 45 minute meeting held during the evening hours after sundown, and thus does not require the entire day off. (See page 2011.) Since employer is a union workplace, employee vacation days and other days off are governed by rules set forth in the "collective bargaining agreement". James seems to be blaming employer for following the CBA's guidelines. This is the only claim not yet dismissed by the USDC. Pending.


VINCENT MIRANDA CEPEDA v. UNION TRABAJADORES INDUSTRIA ELECTRICA Y RIEGO is an ongoing 2015-17 Puerto Rico federal employment discrimination lawsuit involving a Jehovah's Witness Minister named Vincent Miranda Cepeda, of Cata, Puerto Rico. Vincent Miranda began working at Puerto Rico Electric and Power Authority in 1986. As a condition of his employment, Vincent M. Cepeda had to become a member of the Union. On multiple occasions, Cepeda informed various Union officials that due to his WatchTower religious beliefs that he would be unable to participate in any strikes, picketing, work stoppages, work slowdowns, or employee protests.

In February 2012, a Union official filed an internal grievance in response to Cepeda's failure to appear at an assembly called by Union and Cepeda's decision to remain working at his post during that time. In April 2012, Union labeled Cepeda a "strike buster" for working during the February 2012 union assembly. Union issued Cepeda a written admonishment for his failure to participate in the work stoppage and attend the assembly. Union also fined Cepeda $140.00 for his failure to attend the February 2012 union assembly. The monetary fine was levied in violation of Cepeda's contractual agreement with Union which guaranteed notice and a hearing in such circumstances.

In October 2012, a second Union official filed a second grievance against Cepeda for Cepeda's failure to participate in a 12-hour work stoppage and for Cepeda's failure to attend an assembly at Roberto Clemente Coliseum. Again, Cepeda was not given proper notice of the hearing and was fined $50.00. When the hearing was held. Cepeda alleges that he was under "partial hospitalization" due to emotional distress resulting from Union's actions. In January 2013, Vincent Cepeda filed a complaint against Union with EEOC. In February 2013, Cepeda notified Union that he opposed the fines because he believed they were levied against him without consideration of his religious reasons for not participating in the work stoppages. In June 2013, Union sent a collection letter to Cepeda requesting payment of the two fines. In July 2013, Cepeda reiterated the religious reasons for his abstention from the work stoppages.

UNION TRABAJADORES INDUSTRIA ELECTRICA Y RIEGO v. VINCENT MIRANDA CEPEDA. In July 2014, Union filed a lawsuit to collect the two fines amounting to $190.00.

In February 2015, Vincent Miranda Cepeda filed this MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR lawsuit alleging religious discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and violation of his civil rights under the Puerto Rico constitution. INTERESTINGLY, under Puerto Rica law, Cepeda's Jehovah's Witness Wife, Doris A. Gordian-Reyes, also filed a claim for damages for HER emotional distress.


BETTY FOX v. YATES SERVICES LLC was a 2014-17 Tennessee federal employment discrimination lawsuit. YATES is a provider of contract employees to NISSAN's Smyrna, Tennessee manufacturing plant. Betty Fox is an African-American Jehovah's Witness who was hired by YATES in December 2011, and began working at NISSAN in January 2012. Betty Fox apparently identified herself as one of Jehovah's Witnesses during her first week at NISSAN. At some point thereafter, Betty Fox's co-workers also were given the impression that Betty Fox was "anti-union". Soon after employment, Betty Fox began to file with NISSAN'S HR Department complaints of harassment by co-workers relating to her WatchTower religion, as well as complaints of sexual harassment by one particular co-worker. HR investigations failed to corroborate Fox's claims, and Betty Fox was warned her that her continued complaints were disruptive and could result in discipline.

On May 15, 2012, Betty Fox received a verbal warning for comments that could have been "reasonably understood as a threat, which grew out of an incident in which it was reported that Betty Fox made a threat that she was going to shoot [alleged sexual harasser] with a gun". The accused sexual harasser was given a "Written Reminder" on the same day "for disrupting the workforce as a result of his interactions with Fox".

On August 6-7, 2012, NISSAN managers pulled each employee in Betty Fox's workgroup off the line and reminded them individually of NISSAN'S code of conduct and harassment policies, talked to the employees about these policies, and informed them that harassment was a serious offense and would not be tolerated.

On October 1, Betty Fox was given a "Written Reminder" for approaching her alleged sexual harasser in an inappropriate and confrontational manner that stated that her actions were "unacceptable and counter-productive to the successful operation of this company" and that it was the company's responsibility to provide a "work environment free of harassment or intimidation of any kind." Betty Fox also was warned that if she did not "correct the problem", or if she continued to display this type of behavior in the future, "further corrective action may be taken, up to and including termination." The next morning Betty Fox came into work very upset, and she spoke to a supervisor about incidents such as "people staring at her", "people not leaving her alone", "that the work group did not like her", that one co-worker had tried to push her, and that another co-worker had tried to break her arm. 

HR investigated Fox's complaints, but was unable to find any evidence at all to support her claims. Ultimately, HR found that Fox's repeated complaints were causing disruption in the workgroup, because everyone tried to avoid her and each time they did an investigation, Fox's co-workers instead complained about her. Betty Fox continued to file additional complaints, so on October 3, 2012, Betty Fox was suspended without pay. On October 19, YATES fired Betty Fox for disruptive behavior per published employment guidelines. This federal lawsuit alleging a hostile work environment and retaliation was filed in November 2014. In February 2017, the Tennessee USDC summarily dismissed the entire lawsuit.


JASON LLOYD SMALL v. CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE is an ongoing 2014-17 Tennessee federal employment discrimination lawsuit. Incomplete, limited details available. Jason L. Small, age 41, of Memphis, Tennessee, is a Jehovah's Witness Employee who has been employed as a "bargaining unit"employee with the City of Memphis's Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Division (MLGW) since around 1996. Around 2010, Jason Small, whom had worked as an Electrician since initial employment, suffered an unknown "wrist injury" (carpal tunnel???) which led to four surgeries over the following four years. Around 2013, Jason Small's doctor placed Small on permanent work restrictions which prevented Jason Small from performing duties as an Electrician. Jason Small apparently received disability leave and benefits.

Per MLGW employment policies, Jason Small had one year to apply for and be hired to another job at MLGW for which he was qualified. Apparently, Jason Small was eventually hired for such a position, but Small now complains that the scheduling for this unidentified position impedes Small's ability to regularly attend the midweek evening meeting and the Sunday meeting at his local Memphis Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jason Small further complains that he has been disciplined for missing work and clocking in late because of attending Kingdom Hall meetings.

At some point, Jason Small filed a complaint with the EEOC which alleged employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. After its own thorough investigation, in 2016, EEOC apparently declined to pursue Small's claims, but instead issued to Small a Right-To-Sue Letter. In January 2017, Jason Small hired his own attorney and filed this federal lawsuit. In addition to the above allegations and claims, Jason Small claims that due to the large size of his employer that MLGW is legally obligated to place him in an employment position which fully accomodates his religious meeting schedule at his local Kingdom Hall even if such requires MLGW to violate its "collective bargaining agreement". Outcome pending.

See Also:

JASON LLOYD SMALL v. MARCIA LARUBA SMALL (Divorce with children: 2003)

JASON L. SMALL v. MLGW (Workers Compensation: 2004)

JASON L. SMALL v. MLGW (Workers Compensation: 2011)


JIMMIE KNIGHT v. CITY OF BENTON HARBOR, MICHIGAN, ET AL is an ongoing 2014-16 employment discrimination federal lawsuit filed by one of Benton Harbor, Michigan's most prominent Jehovah's Witness Elders, and involves an African-American Supervisor Defendant who was reared as a Jehovah's Witness, but is now a Christian Minister. A 2014 state incorporation filing for the Benton Harbor Michigan Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses lists "Jimmie Knight" as the principle "Agent". An old 1968 incorporation filing for the Benton Harbor Michigan Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses lists "Jimmie Knight Jr." as its principle "Agent". Thus, the "Jimmie Knight" who is the plaintiff in this lawsuit appears to be the son of Benton Harbor's previous most prominent JW Elder.

According to an article published in October 2015, which is partially based on city records it obtained via a FOIA request, THE HERALD-PALLADIUM, alleges that Jimmie Knight, age 37, was fired from his position as a FIREFIGHTER for "removing" city property and "lying" to Public Safety Director Dan McGinnis, who acknowledges being reared as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. According to city records, when Public Safety Director Dan McGinnis sought to review files belonging to the City's former Firefighters' Union, which had been decertified in 2013, McGinnis discovered that the files were missing from the Watch office. McGinnis then reviewed surveillance footage which showed Jimmie Knight filling two garbage bags with files from the filing cabinet of the former union, removing them from the building, and then putting them in his own automobile. When McGinnis asked Knight to return the files, Knight allegedly only returned one bag. McGinnis retrieved the second bag out of Knight's locked trunk while Knight was on a fire call. The City report states that the files contained personnel information from current and past employees, along with old Union info.

Jimmie Knight's lawsuit denies many of the claims in the aforementioned City reports, and alleges that he was wrongfully fired in November 2014 in retaliation for raising concerns about fire safety policy and training. Knight filed a complaint about training and equipment deficiencies with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration on 11-14-14, was suspended a few hours later, and was terminated on 11-18-14. Knight's lawsuit seeks that Knight, who had been employed as a city firefighter since May 2005, be reinstated with the Fire Department and that he be awarded back pay and damages. Outcome pending.

Jimmie Knight reportedly also filed a complaint with the EEOC in 2014 which alleged religious discrimination. The EEOC decided in July 2015 not to pursue Knight's claims and issued Knight a Right-To-Sue Letter.


HUBERT EUGENE FERRELL v. SOUTHERN OHIO COAL COMPANY was a typical "black lung check" fishing expedition similar to thousands of similar claims filed by nearly every Appalachian male who ever set foot on the property of a coal mine. Hubert E. Ferrell, a Jehovah's Witness Minister since 1968, filed this claim in 1994, when he was about 63 years old. Hubert Ferrell was a lifelong "union man", who worked for decades as a union painter in Washington D.C. Possibly relocating to where "the need was great", Ferrell was employed for about 12 years in coal mines in the Clarksburg, West Virginia area.

Under federal law, to establish entitlement to "black lung" benefits, Ferrell had to prove that he had black lung, prove that his black lung arose out of coal mine employment, and prove that his condition was totally disabling. Typically, Hubert Ferrell was able to present evidence from "one" West Virginia doctor who opined that Ferrell had "black lung". Just as typically, the government was able to produce much better qualified doctors and medical test results which conclusively demonstrated that Hubert Eugene Ferrell did NOT suffer from "black lung". Accordingly, Ferrell's case before an Administrative Law Judge was a LOSER. Ferrell's attorney quit, and the pro se appeal in 1999 was unanimous in upholding the ALJ's decision.


CRAIG E. FERRELL, HUBERT E. FERRELL ET AL v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY ET AL was a 2004-11 West Virginia class action "pollution" civil lawsuit filed by 8500 West Virginia property owners and residents living in Harrison County, West Virginia, against one of the area's historic larger providers of employment. This lawsuit was settled in 2010 for approximately $70 MILLION. Hubert Ferrell died in 2017, at the age of 86. Hubert was survived by his son, Craig Ferrell.


ADAM HABARTA v. TORONTO ONTARIO SCHOOL BOARD was a 2015-16 Canadian employment discrimination arbitration case. Adam Habarta, of Toronto, Canada, is a Jehovah's Witness Minister who has been employed as a janitor at the Danforth Collegiate Institute since 1994. During Habarta's entire 22 year employment period, Adam Habarta has worked only four of the five shifts per week which his "union" job normally requires to constitute a "fulltime" position consisting of 8 hours per day, five days per week. For 20 years, the Toronto School Board permitted Habarta to take off every single "Thursday" in order to "accommodate" Habarta's religious "need" to attend religious services on Thursday evenings at the Birkdale Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. For twenty years, this religious "accommodation" has required Danforth's shift supervisor to "cover" for Habarta every Thursday. In January 2015, Adam Habarta's "seniority" made him eligible for the shift supervisor position at Danforth, and he so applied. Due to the fact that Habarta was applying for the very supervisory position which had been forced to "cover" for Habarta's absence every Thursday for the past 20+ years, the school board gave that position to a janitor with lesser seniority on the grounds of "undue hardship".

In December 2016, an Arbitrator named Christopher J. Albertyn ruled that the school board had violated the Ontario Human Rights Code, as well as thecollective bargaining agreement, in that the school board had failed to continue to "accommodate" the religious needs of Adam Habarta. The school board was ordered to promote Adam Habarta to either the shift supervisor position at Danforth, or an equivalent position, while continuing to "accommodate" Adam Habarta's religious need to skip work every Thursday. The school board was also ordered to pay Adam Habarta his "lost earnings" dating back to February 2015, plus an additional $1000.00 in "damages". The Arbitrator further ruled that it was up to the school board and the union to figure out how best to "cover" Adam Habarta's absence as the shift supervisor every Thursday. No good deed goes unpunished.


GREGORY S. BURGE ET AL v. INLAND STEEL COMPANY was a 1981-83 Indiana lawsuit filed by a prominent northwest Indiana Jehovah's Witness Presiding Overseer and WatchTower Regional Building Committee Spokesperson, who along with 70 other brickmason Union members who became totally or partially separated from employment were seeking Trade Readjustment Allowance benefits under the Federal Trade Act of 1974. Initially denied by the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, they won eligibility for benefits in the Indiana Court of Appeals.


CASTILLO v. ANTON CARATAN is a 1982 California Agricultural Labor Relations Board Decision/Order which is lengthy and more complex than is necessary to sort through for the purposes of inclusion here. For our purposes, we can take a look at two key figures in this case -- Jesus and Eloida Hernandez - a Jehovah's Witness husband and wife.

Non-JWs should understand that during the various unionization efforts which occurred in the United States in the early to mid 1900s, the Watch Tower Society always publicly declared themselves "neutral" regarding such, just like they supposedly are "neutral" in politics and all other societal controversies. Many a Midwest Jehovah's Witness autoworker sweated over whether they would or would not join the UAW, would or would not pay union dues, would or would not walk a picket line, etc. Essentially, Jehovah's Witnesses were permitted to exercise their consciences as to whether they would or would not join a union, but they could do nothing more to support the union than pay dues. If a strike occurred, JWs could not walk picket, but could "sweep the floor of the union hall, while the other members were out picketing". However, the National Labor Relations Act, Section 19, provides: "An employee who is a member of and adheres to established and traditional tenets or teachings of a bona fide religion, body, or sect which has historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting labor organizations shall not be required to join or financially support any labor organization as a condition of employment; except that such employee may be required in a contract .... in lieu of periodic dues and initiation fees, to pay sums equal to such dues and initiation fees to a non-religious, non-labor organization charitable fund ... ." Thus, rather than joining a Union and paying union dues, many Jehovah's Witnesses over the years have elected what is known as "the charity option".

Then, we run across Jesus and Eloida Hernandez, who are members of a certain group of people who have been heavily targeted for recruitment by the Watch Tower Society. Jesus and Eloida Hernandez were Jehovah's Witnesses. That was a fact, since this judge ruled that the conduct for which Jesus Hernandez was fired was disrupting work activities by preaching Watchtower doctrines to his fellow farmworkers farm while they were trying to work. This judge also ruled that this JW Employee's testimony was so "unreliable", that Hernandez's allegations of "unfair labor practices" against this employer were dismissed. According to this JW Employee's own testimony against this employer, the JW Employee told his employer that he was a UFW supporter who had been fired from a previous position for testifying against the previous employer for alleged "unfair labor practices". Either Hernandez was lying under oath in order to establish untrue allegations against this employer, or he was telling the truth, which means this Jehovah's Witness was involved in the migrant farmworker's movement of that era.

Given the Watch Tower Society's passion for tapping this new source of recruits, and the fact that the language and cultural barrier would keep derivations in doctrine from being discovered by the main body of American JWs, there may have been something very interesting going on in the southwest JW community in the 1960-80s. This certainly would not have been the first time the Watch Tower Society turned its' head to certain activities conducted by this group of recruits.


NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. WORLD CARPETS OF NEW YORK, INC (1968) and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. WORLD CARPETS OF NEW YORK, INC (1972) were two New York state federal appellate USCA decisions which related to the "running battle" between the JEHOVAH'S WITNESS OWNED World Carpets of New York, Inc. and the Allied Trades Union, during the 1960s-1970s, when A.T.U. was attempting to "unionize" the New York warehouse of World Carpets, Inc.

World Carpets, Inc., of Dalton, Georgia, was a forerunner of the now publicly traded Mohawk Industries, Inc., currently the second largest floor covering company in the world. World Carpets, Inc. was founded in 1954 by a Jehovah's Witness couple named Shaheen Azeez Shaheen (Palestinian immigrant) and Piera Barbaglia Shaheen. Thereafter, their sons, John A. Shaheen (Financial Patron of WatchTower Bethelite Natheer Salih - 2009, 2010, 2011) and David M. Shaheen, helped grow World Carpets into the 12th largest floor covering company in the world at the time that it was merged into the publicly traded Mohawk Industries, Inc. in 1998.

Here are a few interesting excerpts from the two USCA opinions. Readers with further interest should google and read the entire opinions:

Respondent distributes carpets manufactured in Dalton, Georgia, by its affiliate, World Carpets, Inc. One Shaheen owns a controlling interest in and is president of both companies as well as of distributors in other parts of the country. Charles [P.] Alvin was manager of respondent's warehouse at Garden City. ... When Alvin brought up his lack of authority and consequent need to talk to his principals in Georgia, Fecter responded "When you do talk to your officials in Dalton, Georgia, let them know that we are threatening you with pulling out the men."

Alvin immediately called the head office in Georgia but found that Talley was in Los Angeles. Located there, Talley told Alvin not to sign anything and to endeavor to get a little time to enable them to make a report to the president and to think things over. After being put on the phone with Barresi, Talley again requested Alvin to try to get more time, said there was nothing he could do until he talked to the president, and promised to call back. Feeling uncomfortable under Barresi's pressure, Alvin went out of his office and called Talley again. Talley said "that he cannot give me a decision and try to ask for more time so we can submit a report to the parent organization in Dalton, Georgia, as he knew that Shaheen did not want a union in the warehouse." On his return to the conference room, apparently believing that any further requests for time would be fruitless, Alvin told Barresi "that he had just spoken to Talley, and Talley had told him that the office in Georgia had said that the Company did not recognize any union, to let them strike."

The Union carried out its threat almost immediately. Three employees left their work and began picketing. A fourth, the only one who had not signed a card, stayed on the job when Alvin told him he was not required to leave. The fifth, who was not at work on May 2, observed the picket line on his way to work the next morning and started picketing. Alvin admitted seeing the four pickets. On May 5, the Union filed a charge of violation of 8(a)(5). Sometime during the next two weeks Talley told Alvin that among the reasons Shaheen didn't want a union in New York was his fear that this would spread to other warehouses. ... ...

The other remark of Pollack's on which the majority relied was that he "had heard that [President] Shaheen had said he would close the warehouse down and ship directly from Georgia or open a new warehouse up in Jersey before he would let the Union in."

Readers interested in the "Jehovah's Witnesses" angle of World Carpets, Inc. may wish to take a look at a 1970-71 Texas federal court case, WORLD CARPETS, INC. v. DICK LITTRELL'S NEW WORLD CARPETS ET AL, which was a trademark infringement lawsuit that suspiciously looks as if the multiple defendants may have been fellow Jehovah's Witnesses of the Shaheen family.

Also, see PATRICIA FOLINO ET AL v. WORLD CARPETS INC, which was a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by former female employees.


IN RE DANIEL LEE HAMON (1980), AFL-CIO v. GREEN COUNTY CASTING CORPORATION (1980-82), and DANIEL LEE HAMON, RICKY JAKE HAMON, ET AL v. GREEN COUNTY CASTING CORPORATION (1981-87) are related 1980-87 Workers Compensation, NLRB, and Oklahoma state court cases filed by a Jehovah's Witness Minister named Daniel Hamon, then age 32, of Muskogee, Oklahoma, his cousin, Ricky Hamon, and six other co-workers, against their employer, Green County Casting Corp. Ricky J. Hamon was "Chief Steward" of the local Union, and had been involved in 500 previous grievances filed against GREEN.

The employees' union contract with GREEN expired October 31, 1979, and a strike commenced immediately thereafter. Daniel Hamon and Ricky Hamon each served as "Picket Captains" during the strike. A settlement was reached in January 1980, and all workers were recalled except for Daniel L. Hamon, Ricky J. Hamon, and the other defendants due to the fact that AFTER the strike had commenced they had filed Workers Compensation claims against GREEN.

Daniel Hamon's Workers Compensation claim was filed on November 12, 1979, in which Dan Hamon alleged that he had suffered a back injury on October 31, 1979. Daniel Hamon chose his own treating physician, who later provided testimony that Hamon had suffered a 20% PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY. The examining doctor for the State Insurance Fund testified that Dan Hamon had not suffered any "permanent disability" whatsoever, and that as of his examination in January 1980, he had found no temporary physical impairment whatsoever, nor had he found any evidence of any prior medical treatment for such. Despite such testimony, in March 1980, the Oklahoma WC Board granted Daniel Lee Hamon 8% PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY.

Despite winning reinstatement, back wages, interest, etc. before the NLRB, the defendants then proceeded to sue GREEN in Oklahoma state court for additional damages allegedly caused by "retaliatory discharge". Outcome unknown, but indications are that the Defendants also won that court case.


APONTE v. BUONO and HERBERT APONTE v. MARY ANN BUONO, President Local 426 International School Transportation Workers Union were both a New York state court case (2010?), and now also a 2011-12 federal court case. Herbert Aponte, a male Jehovah's Witness living in Bronx, New York, was employed for eleven years as a NYC school bus driver under a collective bargaining agreement between the "Union" and Aponte's Brooklyn employer, Precious Services and Management Corporation. In May 2010, a parent reported to the New York City Department of Education, Office of Pupil Transportation, that Aponte had left a student at home unattended instead of at an alternative pre-arranged location. OPT investigated the complaint and held a disciplinary hearing on May 27, 2010. Buono attended the meeting with Aponte. After the hearing, OPT suspended Aponte's Certificate of Approval as a New York City school bus driver for 270 days because of the incident. Aponte appealed this decision, and a disciplinary appeal conference was held before the NYCDOE Office of Appeals and Review on August 18, 2010. Buono again attended the conference with Aponte. Aponte's 270-day suspension was changed to a permanent revocation of his bus driver certification.

Thereafter, Aponte filed a state court civil action which was eventually dismissed because Aponte failed to appear. In March 2011, this federal lawsuit was filed in which Aponte alleged that Buono breached the Union's duty of fair representation when she failed to adequately represent Aponte at the aforementioned disciplinary proceedings. Aponte's complaint also suggested that Buono and the Union did not adequately represent Aponte's interests because the Union is overwhelmingly Catholic and Aponte is a Jehovah's Witness. The final paragraph of Aponte's complaint suggested that he has been subjected to a "hostile environment" at work because he is a Jehovah's Witness and "everyone else is Catholic." Aponte claimed that he was ostracized and harassed at work on a daily basis because of his religious beliefs, and that no one would associate with him.

In December 2011, the USDC dismissed Aponte's claims against Mary Ann Buono. The USDC did allow Aponte 30 days to filed an amended complaint against NYCDOE alleging a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Outcome unknown.


MONTEIRO v. TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN, AFSCME, ET AL was a 2005-12 Rhode Island state court case. In June 2005, Frank A. Monteiro, who had worked for seven years as a maintenance technician and a carpenter for the Middletown Public School System, was fired after an argument with his supervisors. Shortly thereafter, Frank Monteiro filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, alleging that during his seven year tenure with the Town that he had suffered racial discrimination (African-American) and religious discrimination (practicing Jehovah's Witness) at the hands of municipal and union officials. He also alleged that he was discharged in retaliation for making complaints.

In May 2006, an arbitrator upheld the termination. The RI Superior Court confirmed the arbitration in November 2006. In October 2008, the Superior Court granted the Town's motion for summary judgment on the discrimination claims. Thereafter, Monteiro pursued the Union and individual union officials on discrimination and representation claims. The Superior Court dismissed the discrimination claims in July 2011, but allowed the representation claim to be litigated. The 54 year-old Jehovah's Witness Minister died in October 2012.

RHODE ISLAND v. MONTEIRO. A charge of domestic assault can be in January 2000.


CARMEN APORTELA v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION is a series of Texas federal court cases which involve a 10+ years long running battle between a female Hispanic Jehovah's Witness named Carmen Aportela and her employer, the Social Security Administration. Carmen Aportela started working at the SSA in 1989 in an unidentified capacity. In 1995, Aportela was promoted to the position of "claims representative", and problems apparently started immediately after Aportela started working that position. Between 1996 and 2003, Carmen Aportela filed 7 formal complaints with the EEOC complaining of "discrimination" based on her Jehovah's Witnesses religion; her Hispanic race; her Mexican? national origin; her female sex; and her physical disabilities, including fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety and stress, migraines, memory loss, and lupus. Aportela also filed two or more worker's compensation claims (1996, 1998, ?). In May 1998, Aportela was even terminated, but was re-instated in January 1999 after SSA agreed to settle that case.

One noteworthy incident occurred in 1996, when Aportela's request for 40 hours of "leave" was denied, so that Aportela could attend an American Federation of Government Employees Human Rights Conference. Aportela also involved the local Union and its representative in her complaints. This is noteworthy, since as pointed out elsewhere in this website, the WatchTower Society historically has counseled its Jehovah's Witnesses members to avoid union activities, including at one time even avoiding membership. For some unexplained reason, Hispanic JWs never got the message. I have repeatedly ran across bits and pieces, here and there, of Hispanic JWs being intimately involved in unions and union activities.
Almost immediately after Aportela started working as a claims rep, she started complaining about: her supervisor hiring too many people from his religion; co-workers being treated better than her; co-workers receiving larger bonuses for less work; being assigned work in greater quantities and difficulty; workstation issues; multiple difficulties with co-workers; etc., etc. Aportela was cited numerous times for AWOL for unexcused tardiness and/or absences, and was suspended two or more times (in addition to the 1998 termination).
In 2002, Aportela's then six pending EEOC claims were consolidated and heard by an ALJ, who ruled against Aportela. Aportela appealed and lost again. In 2003, Aportela filed a Title VII federal lawsuit claiming a litany of discriminations and retaliations. That case was summarily dismissed in 2005. In 2003, Aportela filed a seventh EEOC claim, which was not included in the 2003 federal lawsuit. The disposition of that claim, probable later EEOC claims, and probable later lawsuits are all unknown.
2012 ADDENDUM: A located 2003 EEOC decision states that Aportela actually filed 49 claims dating from January 1997, through February 2001, regarding hostile work environment, suspensions, problems filing a workers' compensation claim, denial of performance award, co-worker harassment, denial of training, denial of leave, non-selection for promotion, working in an unsafe environment, assignment of inequitable workload, scrutiny of time and attendance, denial of representation, denial of reasonable accommodation, lost pay, and denial of opportunity to work overtime. This decision stated, in part:
While the [EEOC Administrative Judge] found that complainant belonged to statutorily protected classes, she did not find any basis for imputing liability to the agency because the complained of conduct or practice did not occur, or if it did, it was not objectively offensive, was not corroborated by other evidence, was contradicted by other evidence, or complainant's accounting of the events was not borne out by the evidence, and was not credible.


During the year 2000, the Florida news media repeatedly reported on the saga of a Jehovah's Witness Firefighter, named Barac Wimberly, who was eventually fired from the Pinellas Park Fire Department due to alleged poor job performance. Wimberly filed a religious discrimination claim with EEOC prior to his dismissal, but I don't know whether such was ever followed by a lawsuit in either state or federal court after Wimberly's termination. The charges and counter-charges are numerous, so I would recommend reading all the linked newspaper articles.

Some of the Department's allegations included: In 1999, Wimberly received a written reprimand for sleeping through a fire alarm, because Wimberly was wearing earplugs to drown out fellow firefighters' snoring. Soon after, he was reprimanded in writing and suspended for half of a 24-hour shift for leaving medical waste, such as needles and bandages, a blood pressure cuff, and other equipment, in someone's home after a medical call. Not long after, he slept through another alarm. Fire officials gave him a three-day suspension without pay that Wimberly appealed and had two days' pay restored. There are many more negatives in the linked newspaper articles.

Wimberly's charges of religious discrimination included: (1.) Co-workers often asked why Wimberly didn't celebrate holidays, such as Christmas. One acting supervisor allegedly asked Wimberly why he accepted a Christmas bonus if he didn't celebrate the holiday. (2.) Co-workers had joked about Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on doors -- calling them Saturday morning streetwalkers. (3.)After arguing with one firefighter/paramedic about his religion, the man asked Wimberly why Jehovah's Witnesses were coming to his door. He also told Wimberly that he disagreed with Jehovah's Witness' interpretation of the Bible. Shortly after, that co-worker allegedly began filing complaints against him that could not be substantiated. (4.) When Wimberly refused to take the Union Oath, as written, he was accused of elevating myself above everyone else, and attempting to get the oath changed. (5.) He declined to help decorate the fire truck during the winter holidays because of his religious beliefs. An acting supervisor "accused me of using my religion to get out of job duties. He told me to leave my religion at home." (6.) "I was written up for not being a team player, in part because I did not participate in the holiday activities. (7.) Wimberly concluded, "I believe if I were not a Jehovah's Witness, I would not be subjected to derogatory comments about my religion. I also believe that I am being harassed and subjected to disciplinary action because of my religious beliefs."

In response to Wimberly's charges against the Department, the Fire Chief pointed out that the Department currently already had two Jehovah's Witnesses employed, and both of those JWs held supervisory positions. In fact, the Chief pointed out that at the time that Wimberly was hired, Wimberly was the #1 applicant. All indicators had pointed to Wimberly being a rising star in the Department. However, the exact opposite occurred.

Even Wimberly acknowledged that his problems began soon after he was hired. Wimberly claimed that he was pressured into joining the Union, but Wimberly refused to join the Union because union activities would mean he would have to give up other "off-duty pursuits" -- i.e., door-to-door JW recruiting, etc. Thus, right off the bat, Wimberly fowled up the Department's 100%union participation, which made Wimberly an unpopular character.

After alleged repeated harassment and ridicule, Wimberly decided to join the Union in hopes that that would end his problems. Instead, joining the Union exacerbated Wimberly's problems. Why? Because Wimberely refused to take the Union Oath as it was written because of his WatchTower beliefs. Wimberly refused to swear his "allegiance" to the Union.

So, Wimberly asked for and received permission to swear to an "altered version" of the Union's Oath. That simply Po'ed Wimberly's co-workers that much more, and they essentially had had all of the new recruit that they wanted. The following two years appeared to evidence that fact.


MOORE v. AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSN is a 2007 Texas federal court case which involves a Jehovah's Witness named Jenny R. Moore. Moore is suing her own Union, the American Train Dispatchers Association, over a $2171.00 fine, which the Union issued to Moore after she disobeyed orders from Union officials in March 2005. Moore was on duty as a train dispatcher at Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, in Benbrook, Texas, in March 2005, when she and other union members were ordered to immediately walk off the job. However, Jenny Moore, who is a Jehovah's Witness, told her union representative that she could not obey the union directive until she first got permission from a higher authority -- the Body of Elders at her local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. Moore stayed on the job for about two additional hours before she was able to reach a Jehovah's Witness Elder, who gave her permission to obey her union's orders.
In September 2007, Jenny Moore filed a lawsuit against the American Train Dispatchers Association, in which she is alleging "religious discrimination", and likely suing for far more than the $2171.00 fine. One can only wonder whether Moore was encouraged to file this lawsuit by the Legal Department at the WatchTower Society. Moore has already demonstrated that she doesn't act unless she first consults with her religion's leaders. Curiously, Jenny Moore is being represented by the LIBERTY LEGAL INSTITUTE, rather than by the WatchTower Society's own extensive Legal Department. Liberty Legal Institute is the Legal Division of a Texas religious organization known as the FREE MARKET FOUNDATION. Given that Jehovah's Witnesses preach and teach that all other religions but the JWs are actually "followers of Satan", who GOD will destroy at Armageddon, this "partnership" with this other "false religion" certainly is curious.


NLRB v. HOOD FURNITURE MFG CO was a 1991 Mississippi federal appellate court decision which involved the attempted unionization of a furniture manufacturer. The only portion of the case that involved a Jehovah's Witness Employee issue was the "election". The vote count was 104 "for" Union representation and 103 "against" Union representation.

In its attempt to contest that election, the Employer presented an affidavit from one of its' African-American employees which stated that the employee did not participate in the "election" because of the tenets of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but that if he would have been allowed to vote, then he would have voted "against" Union representation, which would have changed the outcome of the election. The Employer argued that the affidavit should be counted as a "vote" after the fact. The USCA responded:

"The Company complains that to ignore Marshall's desire not to be represented by the Union solely because his religious convictions prevented him from voting contradicts Board policy. This court views it as contrary to Board policy to count as valid the 'vote' of one who comes forward after the results of an election are known, claiming that he would have voted for the losing party and that his vote should now be counted in the official tally, especially where one vote would change the outcome of the election. The Board found no basis in this case for deviating from its established voting practices, and we believe its decision not to count Marshall's affirmation as a valid vote was reasonable."


REDDICKS v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION ET AL was a 2005 Washington federal court decision. In October 2004, an African-American Jehovah's Witness, named Alphonse L. Reddicks, filed a federal employment discrimination lawsuit against Pacific Maritime Association, and Local 23 Longshoremans Union, in which Reddicks alleged that he was wrongfully terminated on the basis of race or color, religion, and in retaliation for being a witness in two separate grievances. Alphonse Reddicks requested relief of $1,000,000,000.00 (that's ONE BILLION DOLLARS) for disparate treatment, wrongful termination, termination without just cause, violation of his civil rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Taft-Hartley Act and the National Labor Relations Act.
In March 2004, Reddicks was "deregistered", or fired, by the Tacoma Longshore Joint Port Labor Relations Committee for purportedly failing to pay Union dues for October of 2003, and for failing to provide an adequate or timely excuse for low hours for January of 2004. Reddicks claimed that the real reasons that he was fired was because of his WatchTower religion, and because of his African-American race, and in retaliation for catching a dispatcher practicing unfair dispatching procedures and for testifying on behalf of two individuals who filed grievances against the Union and the business agent.
In June 2004, Reddicks filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Washington State Human Rights Commission against PMA, but the ILWU was not named in the charge; thus Reddicks did not exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to complaints of discrimination against the ILWU. Reddicks also claimed to have filed a complaint with the EEOC, and further claimed that he received a Notice-of Right-to-Sue Letter, but such was not attached to his pro se complaint.
In August 2005, the USDC "dismissed with prejudice" all claims against the Union. The Title VII claim was dismissed because Reddicks failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and the claims under the FLSA, the Taft-Harley Act, and the NLRA were dismissed for failure of jurisdiction or facts to support any possible claims. The USDC also "dismissed with prejudice" all claims against PMA, with exception of the Title VII claim. Further outcome unknown.


SEIU v. WILSON was a 1985-87 State of Washington case in which a Jehovah's Witness, named William H. Wilson, won his hearing before the Public Employment Relations Commission. Wilson was employed as a school bus driver by the Bainbridge
Island School District, which had a collective bargaining agreement with Service Employees International Union, Local 123.

Wilson did not join the union as required by the collective bargaining agreement. In December 1985, he appeared before the executive board of the union where he asserted his right on non-association. Wilson based this assertion on his membership in the Jehovah's Witness faith. The executive board denied his right on non-association and required that he join the union. He refused to do so, and the union filed this petition.

Prior to working for the Bainbridge Island School District, Wilson was an employee of the state of Washington and was employed at Fircrest School in Seattle. He asserted a right of non-association while he was employed at Fircrest, and was not required to join the union there. The PERC held:

2.Based upon sincerely held, bona fide religious beliefs, William H. Wilson is entitled to exercise a right of non-association and to make alternative payments to charity under RCW 41.56.122.

3.The Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington, is an appropriate non-religious charity to receive alternative payments under RCW 41.56.122.


TREVOR WILLIAM EMILE REES v. CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS was a 2009 case in which a Jehovah's Witness employee of the Canada Post Corporation was terminated in July 2009 after CPC learned that Trevor Rees had attended a WatchTower Convention while he was off on medical leave. CPC took the position that Rees's attendance at the convention was an abuse of his sick leave and a misrepresentation of his ability to perform his duties on his originally scheduled shift. Rees was battling both CPC over his termination, and the CUPW for having failed to properly file his termination grievance within the time limits set out in the collective agreement. Outcome unknown. 


LYSE ARCOUETTE-PELLETIER v. BEAUBIEN METRO MARKET was a 2004-08 Quebec employment administrative appellate case in which the Jehovah's Witness Employee claimed that she had been "psychologically injured" due to a laundry list of complaints against the Employer. LAP lost at the trial level in 2004, and lost her appeal before the Commission On Occupational Injuries in 2008. We include this case here because of the Employer's requirement that all employees holding LAP's position must both solicit and sell LOTTERY TICKETS was one of the "major irritants" in the relationship between the Employer and the JW Employee.
In November 2002, Lyse Arcouette-Pelletier (LAP) was hired as a cashier at a Montreal supermarket called Beaubien Metro Market, which was a "Union" shop. One of the job duties of all cashiers was not only the sale of LOTTERY TICKETS, but also the promotion and solicitation of lottery ticket sales. Every cashier was responsible to maintain their lottery ticket display where every customer could automatically view such, plus every cashier was required to ask each customer if they would like to purchase a lottery ticket. The Employer alleged that never once in LAP's hiring or training did she ever inform Employer that she was a Jehovah's Witness whose religion forbade her to solicit the sale of lottery tickets. It was not until a re-training meeting in February 2003 that LAP then informed the Employer that while she would sell lottery tickets to customers who requested them, she would not solicit nor promote the sale of lottery tickets, because her WatchTower religion forbade her to do so.
Thereafter, there was a running battle between the Employer and LAP over this issue and resulting issues, with LAP dragging the Union into the fray. The Union asked LAP to supply them with supporting documentation that her WatchTower religion forbade her from soliciting or promoting the sale of lottery tickets, and even told LAP to comply with the Employer's requirement until the issue was resolved, but LAP still refused to solicit or promote the sale of lottery tickets.
In August 2003, Lyse Arcouette-Pelletier brought to the Union an article in one of the WatchTower Cult's AWAKE! magazine which dealt with the topic of gambling. However, Union officials quickly noted that even that article acknowledged that there was no explicit prohibition contained in the Bible which forbids lottery sales or purchases, or even prohibits gambling in general. It takes the jumping of a series of hoops to arrive at such a conclusion. Notably, even that article did not forbid Jehovah's Witnesses from selling lottery tickets, or soliciting the purchase of lottery tickets.
Lyse Arcouette-Pelletier eventually was suspended for three days in September 2003, and the Union agreed with that suspension. When LAP returned to work, the running battle involving lottery ticket sales and a plethora of other issues continued. However, in January 2004, LAP filed a complaint with Quebec's Labour Relations Commission. That complaint resulted in the Employer reimbursing LAP for the three days pay that she lost due to the suspension, plus the Employer dropped the multiple disciplinary actions (multiple reasons other than lottery tickets) against LAP. Apparently emboldened by her success before the LRC, LAP initiated this action before the Commission On Health and Safety only a few weeks thereafter.


GLEN EBERLE v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA ET AL was a 2005 British Columbia Labour Relations Board case. The BCLRB ruled against Eberle's request to be exempted from membership in the United Steelworkers of America, and that he be permitted to donate the equivalent of union dues to the WatchTower Society of Canada, stating:

It is the applicant's personal religious convictions which are under scrutiny, not the tenets of his/her religion. The test is subjective. The objection to trade union membership must be founded on deeply held, personal religious convictions and not on social, political, ethical, moral, or philosophical grounds.

The applicant's objection must be to trade unions generally, and not to a particular union or to a particular action or policy of a union. The applicant's convictions must be irreconcilable with membership in any and all trade unions. Eberle has not established that his religious convictions are irreconcilable with membership in any and all trade unions. He has been a dues paying member since 1979. I appreciate that he did not know about the ability to apply for an exemption. However, this does not detract from the fact that he was able to reconcile his religious beliefs with his membership in the Union for over 25 years.

I also appreciate that he would prefer to have his dues money donated to the Worldwide Bible Education Work done by Jehovah's Witness. However, this does not establish that he has an irreconcilable conflict with being a member of a union. The application is dismissed as Eberle has not established that his religious convictions are irreconcilable with membership in any and all trade unions.


JENNIFER LOHMEYER v. COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY, AND PAPERWORKERS UNION OF CANADA ET AL was a 2003-05 Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board case. When a Jehovah's Witness named Jennifer Lohmeyer was employed by the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, she refused to join the Union claiming that the membership application contained a "pledge of allegiance" to the Union, which violated her WatchTower beliefs. When the Union eventually decided to waive her signature on that application, Lohmeyer then objected to the paying of union dues because the Union used a minuscule portion of those dues as a $1000.00 total annual donation to a political party. Lohmeyer wanted to donate the equivalent of her union dues to the WatchTower Society of Canada. However, the Union refused to exempt Lohmeyer from payment of dues to the Union. The SLRB ruled that Lohmeyer could not object to paying union dues merely because her dues might partially be used for some purpose that she disapproved.


BEYDOUN v. CHRYSLER was a failed 2013-15 Michigan federal employment discrimination lawsuit filed by a Muslim employee who was terminated AFTER this lawsuit was filed. Beydoun began working at Chrysler in 2000, and in 2010 was named as a "Team Leader". Problems with co-workers began soon thereafter, which was followed with problems with the UAW, and eventually Chrysler.

Amongst Beydoun's co-worker confrontations was an alleged incident which occurred in January 2012. Beydoun got into a verbal altercation with an African-American Jehovah's Witness co-worker named Costell McIntosh. According to Beydoun, Costell McIntosh threatened him by saying "I'm the wrong motherfucking hi-lo driver to `F' with." Costell McIntosh apparently denied that the confrontation even occurred. Costell McIntosh further denied using profanity -- claiming that the use of profanity would have been contrary to his Jehovah's Witness religion. Both employees were sent home that day. After an investigation, HR could not determine which party was being truthful, so both McIntosh and Beydoun were docked 3-4 hours of pay. However, Beydoun filed a grievance challenging the dock in pay and had his penalty reduced to 2 hours.

After the Costell McIntosh incident, Beydoun also filed a grievance with the Union. In October 2012, Beydoun filed a complaint with EEOC, in which Beydoun claimed that "nothing was done", and that he was told by the Labor Supervisor that because Costell McIntosh "was Jehovah's Witness they believe his story and I was lying."

In November 2012, Beydoun filed a diversity complaint with Chrysler alleging that several Union officials discriminated against him based on his religion. Specifically, Beydoun asserted that Costell McIntosh's Jehovah's Witness religion was given preference over his Muslim religion because the investigation assumed Beydoun was lying about McIntosh's threat. HR investigated and denied Beydoun's claim that Costell McIntosh's Jehovah's Witness religion was given preferential treatment or was even a factor in the January 2012 incident.


J. W. HARVEY v. WEST MIDLAND LAMINATING COMPANY was a 1999-2001 British racial discrimination employment case in which the Employment Tribunal dismissed a claim by Harvey, a former employee of West Midland Laminating, that he was unfairly dismissed, but they upheld a claim that he was subject to racial discrimination by the Respondent. The Tribunal awarded 4000 pounds compensation plus interest of 740 pounds.

Harvey had been a union member before he had joined West Midland Laminating some seven and a half years before. Harvey had been recruited through the union. He was a long standing member, and he was somebody whose departure from the company was negotiated through the union.

Mr Smith, the Managing Director, had treated Harvey very well in time past. In particular by giving him unlimited paid leave at a time when Harvey's mother was ill, and being a Jehovah's Witness had to go into a special hospital at Stoke, and also in not only paying Harvey when he left, but  giving Harvey an ex gratia payment of 1700 pounds. Smith pressed upon us that he was extremely upset and shocked when the allegation of racial discrimination was made against him and his company.

The conclusion of the tribunal was that there was evidence that the applicant had been subject to racial discrimination by the respondents in the way that he had been treated in particular by Gary Swan and to the extent that there were specific occasions when the applicant had been otherwise subject to discriminatory action, in particular by Martin Smith in his derogatory racist jokes ... The tribunal took account of the fact that the applicant was employed in a relatively small company with a small management structure. Although he had had confidence in the previous Works Manager up to his departure at the beginning of 1999, once Mr Swan was appointed as works Manager and he was then faced with a management structure which otherwise comprised Martin Smith who was the son of the Managing Director, the tribunal accepted it would have been extremely difficult for the applicant to have been able to pursue a complaint of racial discrimination, either through his immediate manager or through the Managing Director, with any degree of confidence that it would have been dealt with satisfactorily. His decision therefore to refrain from pursuing the matter formally until he had been dismissed in the tribunal's view justified the exercise of their discretion to the claim to proceed and to be included in the assessment of any compensation.


IN RE CITY COLLEGES OF CHICAGO was a 1995 union arbitration case involving a female Faculty member who was eventually terminated for failure to comply with the City of Chicago's residency requirement which required new-hires to relocate within the city limits of Chicago within six months of hire. Typically, the terminated female faculty member attempted to use her Jehovah's Witness religious beliefs/practices to label her termination as a violation of her constitutional rights. JW Teacher claimed that as one of Jehovah's Witnesses that she was required to submit to the ultimate authority of her husband, who made the decision NOT to relocate. The JW Teacher's religious beliefs also required her to live with her husband. Thus, the residency requirement violated her right to freely practice her religion. The arbitor did not bite. The arbitor ruled against the Jehovah's Witness Teacher stating that JW Teacher was fully aware of the residency requirement when she applied for and accepted the position. Additionally, there was no religious belief that prevented JW Husband from relocating the family inside the city limits -- that was simply his personal choice.


LESLIE SAGGERS v. BRITISH RAIL was a 1976-78 British case. Leslie Saggers, age 63, of Barnham, West Sussex, began working for the railroad in 1935, but was dismissed from the "closed shop" British Rail, in August 1976, after Saggers allowed his National Union of Railwaymen membership to lapse. Saggers had refused to renew such due to his personal belief that the Union had effectively recently become a "political organization" due to recent English legislation affecting the railroads, and thus violated his WatchTower Society beliefs against being a member of a political organization. Saggers acknowledged that the WatchTower Society did not flatly prohibit joining unions, but that this Union had simply become too political for his own personal beliefs. Saggers lost twice while pursuing his wrongful dismissal before the Industrial Tribunal, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal recognized that the governing factor in such cases was the employee's own personal beliefs, not the general teachings of the employee's denomination.


JACOB A. BEDELL v. AFL, SNOW SHIPYARDS INC ET AL was a 1943 Fair Employment Practice Committee case. Jacob Bedell, of Pleasant Point, Maine, was fired from his job at Snow Shipyards after AFL Local 2349 reported that Bedell had refused to join the union due to his beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness that prohibited him from joining a worldly organization. Bedell charged religious discrimination. The WatchTower Society reported to the FEPC that it was a matter of personal conscience whether its members joined unions, as well as how its members thereafter interacted with the union joined and it's activities. FEPC gave no weight to Bedell's personal interpretation and belief.


HODGE THURMAN v. UNITED AUTO WORKERS ET AL was a 1942 Michigan religious discrimination state court employment case. A Jehovah's Witness, named Hodge Thurman, was a longtime employee at a Detroit "WAR PLANT" owned by Murray Corporation. In 1942, under the terms of the labor contract, UAW notified Murray that Thurman no longer was a member in good standing -- with the expectation that Thurman would be terminated. UAW later explained that despite his willingness to work in a "war plant", Thurman refused to participate in UAW's patriotic efforts to support the war effort. Thurman refused to buy war bonds; refused to salute the American flag; and reportedly spoke ill of President Roosevelt, and labeled deaths of Axis soldiers as "murder". When the Michigan courts repeatedly ruled against the efforts of Thurman's attorneys, the WatchTower Society appealed to Eleanor Roosevelt, who directed the President's Committee On Fair Employment Practice to negotiate a settlement which returned Thurman's union card and had UAW move Thurman to another company not manufacturing war materials.


OSCAR LUENSER v. UNITED AUTO WORKERS ET AL was a 1943 Michigan religious discrimination state court employment case. A Jehovah's Witness, named Oscar Luenser, age 47, was a longtime employee at an Ann Arbor "WAR PLANT" operated by the Hoover Ball Bearing Company. Despite his willingness to work in a "war plant", Luenser refused to participate in UAW's patriotic efforts to support the war effort, including refusing to buy war bonds. When Hoover refused to terminate Luenser, UAW went on strike. Two days later, Luenser was terminated. Having won the above THURMAN case, the WatchTower Society went straight to the President's Committee On Fair Employment Practice. Probably with the same outcome.

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


Short BIBLE TOPIC Readings Selected For Those With Jehovah's Witnesses Backgrounds

Wifely Subjection: Mental Health Issues in Jehovah's Witness Women

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 ------>>>