Thoughts in a Haystack

Heh!

Ed Brayton points out the hypocrisy of Intelligent Design advocates when they "claim that ID is not religious, but if anyone is not allowed to advocate for it then they are being discriminated on the basis of religion."

The latest is the case of David Coppedge, an IT employee who has worked on Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Cassini mission since 1997, who was allegedly demoted for promoting his religion by talking about intelligent design with his coworkers and giving them ID videos.

The complaint states that Coppedge is the victim of religious discrimination and retaliation under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act.

"Intelligent design is not religion, and nothing in the DVDs that Coppedge shared deals with religion," noted Luskin. "Even so, it's unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on what they deem is religion."

Let me say this up front: I don't know the facts of this case. I certainly don't trust the DI, which has been flagrantly lying about alleged discrimination cases against Sternberg and many others -- anything to create a false martyr -- since years. But if that accusation is true, if David Coppedge really can show he was demoted because he gave out some pro-ID information to co-workers, Coppedge should win the case.

He would deserve to win the case because he was demoted for reasons that have nothing to do with his performance on the job. He would deserve to win because he is being punished for advocacy that does not diminish his ability to do his job. That's a free speech issue even if it's not a free exercise of religion issue and Coppedge should win his suit.

In balancing these interests, a court must consider whether the statement sought to be protected impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships ... or impedes the performance of the speaker's duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise.

The "manner, time, and place" in which the speech occurs is important in determining whether it is protected. For example, the Pickering balance is more likely to favor the government when an employee directly confronts his supervisor with objectionable language than when an employee engages in equivalent speech on his own time and not in front of co-workers. ...

The Supreme Court also has explained that regardless of the content of the speech, the responsibilities of the employee, or the context in which the speech was made, an employer is never required to allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action. The State need show only a "likely interference" with its operations, and not an actual disruption. [The] Court gives substantial weight to government employers' reasonable predictions of disruption caused by employee speech.

However, even if the Pickering balance is resolved in the employer's favor, the employee may still demonstrate liability by proving that the employer disciplined the employee in retaliation for the speech, rather than out of fear of the disruption.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 11:40 PM