Judge slaps library for barring cross pendant

biblthmp

Registered Senior Member
Judge slaps library for barring cross pendant
Court rules employee wrongly fired for wearing religious necklace

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 4, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


A federal court in Kentucky has ruled it was improper for a public library to fire an employee for wearing a necklace featuring a Christian cross pendant.

The American Center for Law and Justice, a public-interest firm specializing in constitutional law, said in a statement yesterday the federal court in Bowling Green ruled the action violated the free speech and free exercise of religion clauses in the First Amendment.

"This is a very important decision that underscores the fact that employees have constitutional rights to express their faith in the workplace so long as that expression does not interfere with the work setting," said Frank Manion, senior counsel for the ACLJ and the attorney who represented the employee.

"The fact that our client was fired for wearing a cross pendant on a necklace to work is not only absurd but unconstitutional as well," said Manion. "This decision sends an important message that employers cannot discriminate against employees who choose to express their religious beliefs in the workplace."

As WorldNetDaily reported, the legal group filed suit against the Logan County Public Library in Logan County, Ky., in February 2002 after Kimberly Draper, the employee, was fired by library management for wearing the pendant.

The suit challenged the library's policy on such items, which read, "No clothing depicting religious, political or potentially offensive decoration is permitted."

Draper was fired in April 2001 after being warned she could not wear the pendant.

But U.S. District Court Judge Thomas B. Russell ruled "it is simply beyond credibility that an employee's personal display of a cross pendant, a star of David, or some other minor, unobtrusive religious symbol on her person would interfere with the library's purpose."

Russell cited a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision in saying the library's policy was based on little more than "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance [which] is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression."

Library officials could not be reached for comment. Gene Kapp, a spokesman for the ACLJ, told WorldNetDaily he was unclear whether or not the library would appeal.

The Kentucky ruling comes on the heels of another similar case last week in which a Pennsylvania teacher's aide was reinstated to her job after being suspended for wearing a cross pendant to work.

The aide, Brenda Nichol, is an instructional assistant in the Penns Manor Area Elementary School in Clymer. She was suspended for one year without pay after refusing to remove a one-and-a-quarter inch cross pendant that she had been wearing on her necklace.

The ACLJ, which also represented Nichol, maintained the school's policy was unconstitutional and that its policy was "based on a state religious garb prohibition dating back to 1895."

U.S. District Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab agreed, granting the ACLJ motion for preliminary injunction. Schwab, in his ruling, said the state garb statute did not apply, but if it did it would be unconstitutional.

The court held the school's policy bred "hostility toward religion" and that it, too, was a violation of the First Amendment's freedom of religion protections.

"This is a very important victory upholding the constitutional rights of our client who merely wanted express her faith outwardly by wearing a small cross pendant on her necklace," said Vincent McCarthy, senior counsel for the ACLJ in the Pennsylvania case.

"Our client is back to work, and we are working now to ensure that she will never again face this type of religious discrimination in the school system," he said.
 
It's pretty absurd that she should be fired for such a thing in the first place. The clause about offensive religious items was a bit out there. She's a state employee, not state property, she's certainly allowed to endorse any belief she feels like so long as it doesn't interfere with her duties as a librarian. If she were constantly re-directing patrons to the Christian literature section in an unsolicited manner, or shaving her head and preaching white power in the library, then I could see how there may be a problem. For all I'm concerned, though she could come to work dressed in crosses with a "WWJD" bumper-sticker on her forehead and it wouldn't really matter.
 
Administrators are like that, they will pass any policy at all if they think it will mean less risk for them. In this case the library administration thought it could avoid a few future complaints by banning all religious and political iconography from thier dress code, but it turns out that that is a freeking absurd policy that you cant expect people to follow, but they stuck to thier moronic guns and fired somone over it.
 
I'm amazed that such a rule was ever even put in place. With the exception of pornography, you can't restrict freedom of expression simply because of a potential emotional reaction on the part of an observer. You don't have the right to not be offended by someone.
 
Originally posted by Nasor
I'm amazed that such a rule was ever even put in place. With the exception of pornography, you can't restrict freedom of expression simply because of a potential emotional reaction on the part of an observer. You don't have the right to not be offended by someone.

Heh, tell that to management. I think spymoose was right, they just want to eliminate anything that they think they could possibly receive a complaint about at any time in the future, regardless of how restrictive or absurd it is, after all their employees are not human beings, they are "human resources", and if they don't want to follow the rules well then they can just find somewhere else to work.
 
You make it sound so cold Mystech. I like to think of it like we are on a team. Any complaint that somone makes about a member of the team hurts the whole team. You dont wan't to hurt the team do you Mystech? Now you see why olive drab is the only color you should wear while posting on the sciforums.... think of it as the teams uniform.
 
Back
Top