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