Is it tolerance or discrimination?
I just deleted 59 junk e-mails from my
mailbox, which is about a day’s worth of junk. So, I am
not a big fan of people sending me chain e-mails, even ones
that contain moral messages or the tear-jerkers about someone
who made a difference in a person’s life.
 | ||
It also reminded people my age that we
sometimes got hurt without suing people, played dodge ball, had
to try out for Little League, and could flunk a grade in
school. It ended with: “Our actions were our own.
Consequences were expected.”
That chain mail made today’s report
on labor cases — and one case in particular — even
more enjoyable. It seems that AT&T Broadband recently
adopted a policy on “diversity,” which required all
employees to sign a statement that they would “value the
beliefs of others.” Who could quarrel with this piece of
fluff in this time of hate and intolerance?
Albert Buonanno, that’s who. Albert
apparently thought that signing the diversity statement would
be contrary to his religious beliefs, especially as they
related to homosexuals and Buddhists. AT&T, confronted with
a refusal to sign, decided to fire Albert as a consequence of
his action.
A federal judge in Colorado, however,
thought that the policy went too far, and that by firing the
employee, AT&T was not accommodating the religious beliefs
of Mr. Buonanno.
The judge awarded the terminated employee
nearly $150,000 on the grounds that his termination violated
the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibition against
religious discrimination.
Is there a lesson to be learned from this
for employers other than AT&T?
Probably, but I’m having a difficult
time coming up with one. I am very glad that AT&T had not
asked me to give an opinion on the legality of its diversity
policy, because I see it very differently from the federal
judge.
While I favor anti-harassment and
anti-discrimination policies, I see no real harm in having an
affirmative workplace policy requiring employees to tolerate
the views of other employees.
I suppose the difference is illustrated by
the history of the Golden Rule. Generally, historians believe
that the Golden Rule — do unto others as you would have
them do unto you — is based on an ancient
philosopher’s admonition: that which is hurtful to you,
do not do to others.
So, does the Golden Rule tell us to do
good things for each other or not to do bad things to each
other?
I think there is a real difference. Based
on that federal judge’s decision in Colorado, I would say
that the lesson is, at least in the workplace, to prohibit
unlawful conduct, not encourage your idea of how people should
get along. It’s a shame, but that seems to be the lesson
of this unfortunate case. No good deed goes unpunished. Or
stated differently, policies should be written, like the Ten
Commandments, in negative, DO NOT, language.
Getting back to that chain mail for baby
boomers, I remember how grateful I was to get my first job,
selling hamburgers at 15 cents. I worked with a diverse group
of people, all of whom appeared to be too busy to worry about
whether we all “embraced each other’s
values.” We got along; we had our differences; and we
didn’t need a diversity policy. Maybe I need to start a
new chain mail on how to get along at McDonald’s in the
’60s.
Frank Kollman is a partner in the law firm
of Kollman & Saucier, PA, in Baltimore, MD. He can be
reached by phone at (410) 727-4300 or fax (410) 727-4391. His
firm’s web site at www.kollmanlaw.com has articles, sample policies, news and
other information on employee/employer relations.
 |