MGMT 444 case study

Description

Read of end of chapter case study entitled, “Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599 (9th Cir. 2004)”

Issue: Whether it is religious harassment for an employer, contrary to the employer’s diversity policy, not to accept an employee’s religious belief that the employee must “hurt” gays and lesbian employees by conspicuously posting Biblical verses in order to get them to “repent and be saved.”

Ensure you review the case, as the section below provides a recap surrounding the facts of the case.

Facts: Employee sued employer for religious discrimination and alleged religious harassment after being terminated for repeatedly refusing to remove Biblical passages he posted in his workplace cubicle, easily seen by all, in response to employer’s workplace diversity posters which included affinity orientation.

The conflict between Peterson and Hewlett-Packard arose when the company began displaying “diversity posters” in its Boise office as one component of its workplace diversity campaign. The first series consisted of five posters, each showing a photograph of a Hewlett-Packard employee above the caption “Black,” “Blonde,” “Old,” “Gay,” or “Hispanic.” Posters in the second series included photographs of the same five employees and a description of the featured employee’s personal interests, as well as the slogan “Diversity is Our Strength.”

Peterson describes himself as a “devout Christian,” who believes that homosexual activities violate the commandments contained in the Bible and that he has a duty “to expose evil when confronted with sin.” In response to the posters that read “Gay,” Peterson posted two Biblical scriptures on an overhead bin in his work cubicle. The scriptures were printed in a typeface large enough to be visible to co-workers, customers, and others who passed through an adjacent corridor.

Peterson’s direct supervisor removed the scriptural passages after consulting her supervisor and determining that they could be offensive to certain employees, and that the posting of the verses violated Hewlett-Packard’s policy prohibiting harassment. Throughout the relevant period, Hewlett-Packard’s harassment policy stated as follows: Any comments or conduct relating to a person’s race, gender, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, or ethnic background that fail to respect the dignity and feeling [sic] of the individual are unacceptable.

Over the course of several days after Peterson posted the Biblical materials, he attended a series of meetings with Hewlett-Packard managers, during which both the parties tried to explain to each other their respective positions. Peterson explained that he meant the passages to communicate a message condemning “gay behavior.” The scriptural passages, he said, were “intended to be hurtful. And the reason [they were] intended to be hurtful is you cannot have correction unless people are faced with truth.” Peterson hoped that his gay and lesbian co-workers would read the passages, repent, and be saved.

In these meetings, Peterson also asserted that Hewlett-Packard’s workplace diversity campaign was an initiative to “target” heterosexual and fundamentalist Christian employees at Hewlett-Packard, in general, and him in particular. Ultimately, Peterson and the managers were unable to agree on how to resolve the conflict. Peterson proposed that he would remove the offending scriptural passages if Hewlett-Packard removed the “Gay” posters; if, however, Hewlett-Packard would not remove the posters, he would not remove the passages. When the managers rejected both options, Peterson responded: “I don’t see any way that I can compromise what I am doing that would satisfy both [Hewlett-Packard] and my own conscience.” He further remonstrated: “as long as [Hewlett-Packard] is condoning [homosexuality] I’m going to oppose it… ”

Peterson was given time off with pay to reconsider his position. When he returned to work, he again posted the scriptural passages and refused to remove them. After further meetings with Hewlett-Packard managers, Peterson was terminated for insubordination.

Decision: The court upheld the termination, concluding that the employer was not required to go along with employee’s admitted goal of hurting gay and lesbian employees in an effort to get them to “repent and be saved.”

Address the following questions in your response:

1. Do the employer’s actions here seem reasonable to you (both those in response to diversity and in response to the employer’s reaction)?
2. Would you have balanced the two sides here the same as the court? Explain.
3. How would you design a diversity program that no employee would have problems with?

Four or more pieces of evidence are used to support an argument. Structure of the response is well-
organized and readable. Idea low in a logical sequence. Concepts are cohesive and writing stands together. Sentences are
fluent and well- built. Word choice reflects the content effectively. Minimal, if any, errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, syntax or semantics are present.