Religious discrimination: City of Portland subjected employee to hostile work environment

[rug]

By Brad Schmidt | [e-mail]
on November 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM, updated November 18, 2013 at 2:52 PM

A federal jury this month awarded $14,080 to a city of Portland employee who claimed she was repeatedly harassed by a co-worker because of her Christian religious beliefs.

The jury found that city officials subjected KellyMarie Griffin, an employee with Portland Parks & Recreation, to a hostile work environment and failed to take prompt and effective steps to end the harassment.

The city should pay Griffin $14,080 for non-economic damages, commonly known as pain and suffering, according to the jury’s Nov. 8 verdict.

The co-worker who harassed Griffin, Theresa Lareau, should pay $5,300 in economic damages, according to the verdict. The jury found that Lareau wrongfully continued a civil proceeding against Griffin by seeking a permanent stalking protective order.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/11/religious_discrimination_city.html

The federal complaint:

http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/griffinamendedcomplaint.pdf

Earlier story:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/10/lawsuit_claims_city_employee_t.html

[CurtEastPoint]

1. If what I read in the federal complaint is true, I'm on her side.

Defendant Lareau also told Plaintiff the following: "I am tired of your Christian
attitude;" “You know you are praying to a figment of your imagination, right?” “I’m not talking
about your God; I’m talking about something else;” "I’m tired of your Christian attitude and
your Christian shit all over your desk and your Christian shit all over the place. I’m going to file
a complaint against you the next time I sneeze and you say ‘bless you’. You’re just doing it for
the attention; you wear it on your sleeve like a badge and I’m sick of it. It offends me.”

That's pretty hostile, if you ask me.

[cbayer]

3. Agree. And I would assume that the plaintiff was not that "in your face"

in light of the fact that she had worked in the division for 20 years, apparently without a problem.

I wonder what kinds of steps were taken to resolve this before she took it to court.

[eqfan592]

9. Of course, the defendant may have found the presence of all the Christian paraphernalia to be...

...truly offensive as well, thus creating a hostile work environment for them. Especially if they had a particularly negative experience in their past.

Even if that were the case the defendant could have handled the situation better, but I feel like we're only seeing part of the story here.

[cbayer]

2. Her co-worker said she was going to file a complaint the next

time she said "Bless you" in response to a sneeze.

Really??

[hrmjustin]

4. Childish behavior on her part.

[Dorian Gray]

11. I said God Bless You

to a sneezer once and got lectured that not everybody is a Christian. I was so taken aback by it that I wasn't my normal snarky self. But I did say something to the effect that it's sort of an ingrained response bred into me since early childhood. I was NOT spreading the word of the Lord.

[eqfan592]

12. This I can understand.

I've been an atheist for some time now, yet years of Christian upbringing ingrained "god bless you" into me so deeply that I still catch myself saying it from time to time.

I've been replacing it with gesundheit, which befits my German heritage.

[Aaron8418]

5. My thoughts

Okay, i believe in treating people with respect and respecting others beliefs, and if somebody was to harass somebody that is bad. What i don't agree with is the fact that she went and sued that person, seriously folks!! Get a life, that is so selfish and being jaded. How dare you, who are you to sue somebody for being ignorant, how many times have YOU been ignorant? Probably a lot, ever heard of the saying " let thee without sin, cast the first stone ". Plus you didn't see Jesus going around suing people when they harassed him.

[hrmjustin]

6. She sued to get this to stop.

[rug]

7. Did you miss the part where it was the defendant who threatened to make a complaint

against the plaintiff if she said "God bless you" after a sneeze?

[No Vested Interest]

8. Undoubtedly Ms. Griffin was working in a hostile environment;

However, if I know or thought another employee objected to "God bless you" after a sneeze, I'd refrain from that bit.

[eomer]

10. It appears to me the plaintiff was the first to harass.

In Griffin v. City of Portland, Plaintiff, Kellymarie Griffin, characterized herself as "a devout Christian" whose faith is "the most important thing" in her life. Plaintiff's co-worker, Theresa Lareau, allegedly called Plaintiff a "wacko," told Plaintiff that God was "a figment of her imagination" and stated that Plaintiff was "praying to something that didn't exist." Plaintiff also alleged "frequent profanity" in the workplace by co-workers including the use of the names of God and Jesus Christ as curse words. Plaintiff alleged that the language was offensive to her due to her religious beliefs and that the misuse of God's name was blasphemous and "deeply offended her." Plaintiff claimed that when she heard profanity she would often inform the speaker that she was offended by the language. Most co-workers made efforts to stop cursing in Plaintiff's presence after Plaintiff's request.

On one occasion in May 4, 2011, a co-worker sneezed loudly and exclaimed "Jesus Christ!" in Plaintiff's presence. Plaintiff objected to the use of "profanity [involving] God's name" and stated that the language was "not professional," "distasteful," and "in violation of [her] religious convictions." Plaintiff alleged that Ms. Lareau responded loudly that, "I'm sick of your Christian attitude, your Christian [expletive] all over your desk, and your Christian [expletive] all over the place" and Ms. Lareau accused Plaintiff of using her religion for attention. Plaintiff instigated a formal investigation into the alleged religiously discriminatory behavior and subsequently brought suit under Title VII and state employment discrimination law.

http://phelpsdunbar.com/publications/?action=detail&id=155

So first there was an ongoing campaign by the plaintiff to get people to change their speech that she didn't like even when it had nothing to do with her other than her being within earshot. Then the incident that set off the direct conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant was as innocuous as someone exclaiming "Jesus Christ" after sneezing loudly, which the plaintiff objected to as "profanity [involving] God's name". It was this (in my opinion) overreaching complaint by the plaintiff on top of her ongoing campaign that set off the defendant and caused her to say, "I'm sick of your Christian attitude", etc.

So the interesting question here is whether a person has a right to demand, as the plaintiff did, that people not use profanity in a workplace because it offends her religious beliefs. And whether she's allowed to launch a campaign in the workplace to challenge people every time she hears them use profanity or is such a campaign itself harassment.

[edhopper]

13. The other side

seems not so clear cut as they'd have us think.

[rug]

14. Look again.

An objection to crude or offensive speech is not, as you see it, "an ongoing campaign by the plaintiff to get people to change their speech that she didn't like".

As the court noted, "Evidence that the coworker quickly apologized and refrained from cursing in Ms. Griffin's presence thereafter would bolster the argument that [the] coworker had not cursed because of Ms. Griffin's religious beliefs." Instead, the defendant doubled down, calling her a wacko and other terms you likely would not object to.

The legal principle is whether the plaintiff is in a class that is protected by law. If she had objected to the defendant routinely using misogynist or homophobic or racially disparaging terms, her reliance on the law would not constitute "an ongoing campaign

The fact is, civil rights apply to many classes of people, whether you like religion or not. You selectively enforce it at your own peril.

[eomer]

15. You look again.

What I was pointing out was the sequence of events.

1. The plaintiff first engaged in a campaign to get people to stop using language that did not violate her protections under the law.
   
2. A blowout occurred and then a co-worker began using language that did violate her protections under the law.

Language that a person finds offensive for religious reasons doesn't, by itself, violate any protections. The language had to be spoken because of the plaintiff's protected status. So there had to be the motivation of religious animus or something along those lines for the speech to violate protections. This didn't occur, apparently, until after the plaintiff had been engaged for some time in trying to impose her own religious criteria on speech, which she does not have a right to do under the law.

Here is a court ruling (on a request for summary judgement, I think) that states the legal basis that I've explained above:

It will be a question for the jury whether particular language or comments were used or made “because of” Ms. Griffin’s protected status. As I view the record, there are two categories of conduct at issue in this case. The first is profanity. As alleged, there were two types of profanity used in the Mt. Tabor office: profanity that expressly implicated religious ideas, such as the use of God’s name as a curse, and profanity that did not, such as simple expletives. It is alleged that Ms. Lareau and others used both types of profanity in the office, and that Ms. Griffin frequently asked them to refrain from doing so in her presence because it offended her for
religious reasons. (Griffin Decl. [53] ¶ 14.)

A rational jury could find that at least some of this profanity occurred “because of” Ms. Griffin’s religion, although I think it unlikely that the evidence will show that all of it did. For instance, it is unlikely that a coworker who used a curse word without knowing that the word offended Ms. Griffin for religious reasons used the word around Ms. Griffin because of her religion. Rather, such a coworker likely used the curse word without contemplating whether it would bother or offend anyone, merely because he or she was in the habit of using profanity.6 Evidence that the coworker quickly apologized and refrained from cursing in Ms. Griffin’s presence thereafter would bolster the argument that that coworker had not cursed because of Ms. Griffin’s religious beliefs, although such evidence is not necessary. However, Plaintiff may be able to show that some of this profanity (particularly as used by Ms. Lareau) was uttered because of hostility to Ms. Griffin’s religious beliefs. The burden is on the plaintiff to establish that conduct occurred because of religion, so Ms. Griffin must prove this as to any instances of profanity she wishes to use at trial to establish the hostile work environment.

The second category of conduct is direct hostility to Ms. Griffin’s beliefs, such as Ms. Lareau’s statement that Ms. Griffin was “a wacko” because of her Christian faith. (There are no allegations that anyone other than Ms. Lareau made such comments.) My denial of summary judgment is largely based on the sufficiency of the evidence of such hostility in the record. Ms. Lareau told Plaintiff that her “belief in God was foolish,” (Decl. [53] ¶ 18); asked her whether she knew she “[was] praying to a figment of [her] imagination,” (Decl. [53] ¶ 24); and, as part of the May 4th outburst, shouted that she was “sick of [plaintiff’s] Christian attitude, [her] Christian [expletive] all over the place,” id. ¶ 25). The record shows at least half a dozen specific examples of hostility towards Ms. Griffin’s religion, which, if proved, could support a rational jury’s finding that Ms. Griffin was subjected to a hostile work environment.

Plaintiff will need to walk a fine line between events that occurred because of religion and events that occurred because Ms. Lareau did not appreciate having been complained about to the City. Much of the hostility that occurred after the May 4th outburst may have occurred due to Ms. Lareau’s anger at having been reported and investigated, rather than hostility to Ms. Griffin’s religious beliefs.7 It is Plaintiff’s burden to show that such conduct was based on Ms. Griffin’s religious beliefs rather than on Ms. Griffin having reported Ms. Lareau to their employer, or some other motivation unrelated to religion.

http://www.sussmanshank.com//files/Griffin%20v.%20City%20of%20Portland%20(01733699).pdf

[rug]

16. I did. Your initial premise is still wrong.

No one, the court, the parties, no one -save you - characterized the plaintiff's objections as a "campaign".

You posted a dead link to commentary on a law firm site. If you wish to know the actual sequence of events, read the court's decision itself denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It also recites the law.

[eomer]

17. Here is the court's description of it. My characterization of it as a "campaign" isn't the point.

Also at issue in this case are allegations of frequent profanity in the Mt. Tabor office,
including the use of God’s and Jesus Christ’s names as curse words. Ms. Griffin alleges that Ms.
Lareau and other coworkers frequently used profanity in the office, and that this language is
offensive to her because of her religious reliefs. In particular, because Ms. Griffin views the
profane use of God’s name as blasphemous, this language deeply offended her. Ms. Griffin
alleges that, while she worked in the Mt. Tabor office, when she heard profanity she would often
inform the speaker that this language offended her. She explains that most coworkers would
make efforts to stop cursing in her presence once they were told of the reason for the offense. It
appears that even Ms. Lareau may have made an effort to stop using God’s name in vain for a
time after Ms. Griffin explained that it was offensive to her for religious reasons.

On May 4th, 2011, Ms. Griffin and Ms. Lareau’s already strained relationship fell apart in
an angry outburst (the “May 4th outburst”). Ms. Griffin subsequently asked the City to formally
investigate religious intolerance by Ms. Lareau. That day, members of the clerical team were in
their office just before the lunch hour. While a coworker, Ms. Jackie Bride, was gathering her
things to leave for the lunch break, Ms. Griffin let out a loud sneeze. Ms. Bride, startled,
exclaimed “Jesus Christ!” She then left the office for her lunch break. (City’s Mem. [42] Ex.
10, Griffin Depo. at 55 –56:1.) Ms. Griffin, offended by Ms. Bride’s reaction, commented to
Ms. Lareau (the only other member of the clerical team still in the office), as follows: “I said that
I objected to profanity of God’s name. I said that this type of language is not professional, I find

http://www.sussmanshank.com//files/Griffin%20v.%20City%20of%20Portland%20(01733699).pdf

Whether we would call it a campaign or not, the relevant point is that she engaged in that behavior repeatedly over an extended period of time prior to the blowout, during a time when the language that she objected to did not violate her protections. She apparently did it enough to irritate people and provoke the incident.

It seems to me there's an argument that she created a hostile workplace by repeatedly pushing her religious criteria on other people who didn't agree with it. Having a person correct you every time you curse or use crude language, and having that person call you out on religious grounds, that sounds like harassment to me.

And my link is fine, DU just doesn't like it. Copy/paste it into your browser. It is that same ruling on a request for summary judgement that you referred to after I did.

[rug]

18. Fortunately the jury disagreed with your partisan perspective.

It seems to me there's an argument that she created a hostile workplace by repeatedly pushing her religious criteria on other people who didn't agree with it. Having a person correct you every time you curse or use crude language, and having that person call you out on religious grounds, that sounds like harassment to me.

And they did hear the evidence, not apologetic speculation.

[eomer]

19. The jury didn't rule on the things that I'm saying.

They ruled on whether her protections were violated and I've stated from the start that I think they were, after the blowout.

I don't care that much, actually, about the legal argument. Mainly I was looking at it from the point of view of how people interact with each other and what the moral aspects of it are. Perhaps she oversteps a moral boundary when she tries to impose her religious standards on others. Would I be overstepping if I ask people not to say "God bless you" around me?

[rug]

20. They applied the law to the facts of her case.

They found the defendant had a course of conduct that violated the law, not the plaintiff.

And no, by all means speak up about people saying God bless you after you sneeze. But use a handkerchief.

[eomer]

21. That's what I said, but to be clear: they didn't decide whether the plaintiff violated the law.

That question wasn't put to them. And even so I'm not saying any jury would find that the plaintiff violated the law, but rather that it seems plausibly arguable to me that she did.

And my point was that I don't object when people say "God bless you". Ms. Griffin did do the equivalent of that, I choose not to.