Discrimintation issue

MGT 5030 - Legal Environment of Business Paper 4 | Alexis Lake May 20, 2017 Upon further research and review of court documents in the Peterson v. HewlettPackard Co., case, I agree with the decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that Hewlett-Packard (HP) had the right to terminate Peterson for insubordination, harassment, and creating a hostile work environment that violated the company’s harassment policy. While Peterson’s claims of religious discrimination appear valid at first pass, his claims of disparate treatment and failure for HP to accommodate his religious views, are overruled by the company’s policy as well as his own actions and conduct.

In looking at the specifics of the case, Peterson’s claims for religious discrimination first focused on disparate treatment by HP. In this claim, the burden of proof is on Peterson to prove that HP intentionally discriminated against him and he was terminated based on his religion. In this claim, Peterson must prove a prima facie case that includes four steps, the first being whether he is a member a protected class under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In his case, as a self described “devout Christian,” his religious status allows Peterson to fall within a protected class. The second step in the prima facie case is around whether Peterson was qualified for his job or position. According to court documents, Peterson was qualified for the position. He was employed by HP in Boise, Idaho for approximately 21 years before being terminated and both parties in the case agreed that his job performance was satisfactory. The third step is whether the employee experienced an adverse action, termination or did not receive a promotion based on their protected class status. In

Peterson’s case, he believed he was terminated because of his religious views.

The fourth step is really where the case becomes more complicated, and that is whether those outside of his protected class were treated more favorably than Peterson.

Here Peterson claimed that the HP diversity campaign was developed to promote homosexuality and was actually “‘a crusade to convert fundamentalist Christians to [HP’s] values,’ including the promotion of ‘the homosexual lifestyle’” (Peterson v.

Hewlett-Packard Co., 2004). Essentially Peterson was claiming that the campaign discriminated against and targeted fundamentalist Christians working at HP to change their thinking and beliefs around homosexuality and homosexual relationships. He also claimed that the campaign specifically targeted him because a poster focused on the word “Gay,” was posted near his cubicle or office space. He further claimed that those who hung the posters intended to make him and other fundamentalist Christians feel uncomfortable and change their actions to be in better alignment with HP’s overall acceptance of LGBT employees. Peterson then used this same sort of rationale for why he posted the negative scripture messages in his cubicle. He stated that the scripture passages were intended to be hurtful so that gay and lesbian employees would repent, change their ways, and be saved by Jesus Christ and/or Christianity (Peterson v.

Hewlett-Packard Co., 2004). Also, Peterson claimed that other employees were allowed to show religious symbols and expression, but his scripture postings were not allowed.

Peterson’s case and rationale fails short because of the intention of the HP employee diversity campaign. In this case, the goal of the internal employee campaign was to support and encourage HP’s diversity policy. The main goal of the campaign was to increase tolerance of religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc. While the campaign did

give special attention to homosexuality as Peterson claims, it was with the intention to increase tolerance around homosexuals in the workplace. This campaign was basically in support of Title VII which ensures the protection and equal treatment of all employees. Additionally, the employees hanging the posters were doing their jobs by communicating and sharing the diversity policy and views of HP leadership. The overall message was one of positivity and acceptance by the company, while Peterson’s conduct expressed his own personal views. In addition, Peterson failed to show that other employees’ religious symbols were allowed and his were not. The other employee religious symbols, according to court documents, were a ying yang symbol, a dream catcher, and “new age dolphin poster,” (Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2004). None of which were intended to be hurtful or discriminatory symbols. All of this evidence together was insufficient in proving that there was disparate treatment.

Peterson’s other claim centered around HP’s failure to accommodate his religious views. By law, employers must reasonably accommodate religious practices, as long as it is not an undue hardship to the employer. In looking into the details around this case, it is clear that HP wanted to find a solution to the issue without compromising its diversity and harassment policies. Court documents state that Peterson and HP management met on numerous occasions to explain each others’ sides and viewpoints.

Also, during the meetings HP managers “acknowledged the sincerity of Peterson's beliefs and insisted that he need not change them,” (Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2004). However, Peterson did need to remove and not continue to post scripture messages that were negative or intended to hurt other people because this violated the company’s harassment policy. Peterson asked that HP accommodate his religion by

removing the gay focused campaign posters and he would remove his religious scripture postings. The other accommodation Peterson proposed was that both the gay poster and the scripture messages remain in support of free speech in the work environment.

Both of these accommodations would cause undue hardship, and potentially further legal issues, for HP. The first option, keeping both the poster and the negative scripture, would violate the company’s harassment policy. Essentially, by allowing a negative, anti-gay message intended to hurt others, HP would be allowing harassment to take place at the company. This could allow other hurtful messages to be displayed at the company, not just against LGBT employees, but any other protected classes. At which point, the company could be facing a discrimination lawsuit from LGBT and other employees at the company. The second option to remove the gay poster and the scripture message would hurt the company’s diversity policy and campaign because it would exclude sexual orientation as a form of diversity at the company. Again, hurting and alienating the LGBT employees at HP. While this would be removing the harassment from the office, it remove the recognition of the LGBT community as important part of the company's overall diversity. This exclusion of LGBT employees could be viewed as discriminating against different sexual orientations, which is a protected class. These potential policy issues demonstrate that a religious accommodation for Peterson would cause undue hardship for HP. Additionally, this underscores there was legal merit in terminating Peterson because he violated the company's harassment policy "by attempting to generate a hostile and intolerant work environment,� (Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2004).

Additionally, through this decision by HP to not accommodate Peterson’s requests, the company upholds its harassment and diversity policies. This sends a positive message to the LGBT employee base, and other members of a protected class at HP, that the company stands by and supports its diverse employees and will not tolerate harassment of any form. Had HP made the requested accommodations for Peterson, then the LGBT employees would certainly have clear claims that the company was allowing a hostile, harassing environment to exist and excluding their protected class from diversity policies.

In conclusion, Peterson’s claims around religious discrimination did not meet the requirements for disparate treatment and failure to accommodate. It was his conduct and actions that created a hostile environment for his fellow employees and served as a basis for his termination. By having clearly defined harassment and diversity policies, HP was able to prove that they looked into reasonable accommodations, but doing so would cause undue hardship by violating their own policies. In thinking about this class more broadly, the result was focused on Peterson’s behavior, not his beliefs. HP was able to win this case because they clearly made that distinction and focused on the harassing behavior, rather than the beliefs behind that behavior.

References: Bagley, C.E. (2010). Managers and the Legal Environment Strategies for the 21st Century, South Western Cengage Learning, OH. 6e Egelko, B. (2004, January 07). Fired HP employee loses appeal over anti-gay signs / Court rules Idaho man wasn't a victim of religious discrimination. Retrieved May 20, 2017, from http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Fired-HP-employee-loses-appeal-overanti-gay-2815561.php Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. 6 Jan. 2004. Accessed through an online database on May 20, 2017: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1423047.html Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Employment. (n.d.). Retrieved May 20, 2017, from http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-law-and-human-resources/sexualorientation-discrimination-in-employment.html Williams, C. Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard: Exposing Title VII Inconsistencies In Its Protection of Employees from Workplace Harassment, 83 N.C. L. Rev. 776 (2005).

Available at: h p://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol83/iss3/7