In Dixon v. Hallmark Companies, 10-10047,decided last week by the 11th Circuit, the Court held that an employee fired for protesting a company decision ordering him (and her) to take down a religious poster in the office had nor retaliation claim because no objective person would think there was a right to display religious art in ones office. The company-which managed government subsidized housing- stated that it was afraid that allowing the poster to stand would open it to a claim that it had violated the fair housing act.
Marc D. Stern Associate General Counsel for Legal Advocacy ste...@ajc.org 212.891.1480 646.287.2606 (cell) <http://www.ajc.org/> NOTICE This email may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, disclosure, copying, distribution or other transmission is prohibited, improper and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, you must destroy this email and kindly notify the sender by reply email. If this email contains the word CONFIDENTIAL in its Subject line, then even a valid recipient must hold it in confidence and not distribute or disclose it. In such case ONLY the author of the email has permission to forward or otherwise distribute it or disclose its contents to others. _____ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brownstein, Alan Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 07:36 To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Federal regulators apparently force bank to take downreligioussymbols Do you think there is a discrimination issue as well as an accommodation issue in cases like this, Eugene. Suppose a bank in a southern state insists that all employees have confederate flags on their desks or work stations? Does an African-American employee have a claim under Title VII? What about displays that proclaim the superiority or virtue of the white race? Alan From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 4:19 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Federal regulators apparently force bank to take down religioussymbols Its possible that the question has not arisen, and that if a non-Christian employee objected to having an item displayed on his workstation, the bank would accommodate him. Its not clear to me, by the way, that a non-Christian employee would find such a display objectionable, if it appears to be part of the overall décor, and is thus likely to be seen by patrons as the banks message and not the employees. After all, what is in one sense the employees desk or workstation is also in another sense the banks desk or workstation. (I take it, though, that for Title VII religious accommodation purposes the threshold question would be whether the employee sincerely believes that it is religiously improper for him to work at a workstation that has a particular religious symbol attached to it.) Incidentally, for a similar issue that arose as to free speech, rather than religious accommodation, see Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (1999), holding that an employee had no freedom from compelled speech right to refuse to have an American flag on his workstation. (Connecticut by statute extends First Amendment restrictions to private employers.) Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brownstein, Alan Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 4:10 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Federal regulators apparently force bank to take down religioussymbols The Bank Presidents message is also confusing. He is quoted as stating that The bank publishes a Bible verse on its website and tellers display crosses and other Christian-themed items in their workplace. Does that mean that non-Christian employees are required to display crosses and other Christian symbols and messages from their desks and workstations? Alan Brownstein From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:37 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Federal regulators apparently force bank to take down religioussymbols Very interesting, thanks! But Im a bit confused by the Kansas City Fed chairmans statement, http://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/newsroom/2010pdf/press.release.12.17.p df . It suggests that the regulation does not apply to jewelry or other personal items displayed in the workplace; but the materials, especially on the Web site, dont seem like personal items they seem like statements from the bank management itself. Is the claim that employees may put up their own decorations and statements, but that the bank cant put up decorations and statements endorsed by the management? Or is it something else? Eugene FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Tim Todd December 17, 2010 816/881-2308 timothy.t...@kc.frb.org STATEMENT FROM FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF KANSAS CITY PRESIDENT TOM HOENIG The Federal Reserve's interactions with supervised institutions are subject to strict confidentiality. However, we have become aware of substantial confusion and misinformation related to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and one of the banks it regulates in Oklahoma. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and the bank are working cooperatively and closely to clarify this issue. There have been references made to Regulation B (12 CFR 202 et. seq.), which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and prohibits discriminatory creditor practices. Regulation B, as interpreted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, does not apply to jewelry or other personal items displayed in the workplace. As the regional headquarters for the nations central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas Citys officers, management and staff recognize the critical importance of community banks and the freedom under which they can serve their communities by providing financial services and fair access to credit. As the regional headquarters of the nations central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and its branches in Denver, Oklahoma City and Omaha serve the seven states of the Tenth Federal Reserve District: Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, northern New Mexico and western Missouri. The Bank participates in setting national monetary policy, is responsible for supervising and regulating numerous commercial banks and bank holding companies, serves as the bank for the U.S. government and for commercial banks, and provides other payment services to depository institutions. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Kevin Pybas Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:31 PM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Federal regulators apparently force bank to take down religioussymbols This story from the Oklahoma City newspaper indicates that the Federal Reserve has changed its position about the bank and the items in question. http://newsok.com/feds-relent-on-oklahoma-banks-display-of-christian-themed- items/article/3524584?custom_click=headlines_widget Kevin Pybas _____ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:09 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Federal regulators apparently force bank to take down religioussymbols Any thoughts on this story? See also Sen. Inhofe & Rep. Lucass response, at http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases <http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressRelease s&ContentRecord_id=f5d51d96-f7ff-cb88-e863-3b8dfc32eacc> &ContentRecord_id=f5d51d96-f7ff-cb88-e863-3b8dfc32eacc http://www.koco.com/r/26162860/detail.html A small-town bank in Oklahoma said the Federal Reserve wont let it keep religious signs and symbols on display. Federal Reserve examiners [who came for a regularly scheduled inspection visit] deemed a Bible verse of the day, crosses on the tellers counter and buttons that say Merry Christmas, God With Us. ... inappropriate. The Bible verse of the day on the banks Internet site also had to be taken down.... Specifically, the feds believed, the symbols violated the discouragement clause of Regulation B of the bank regulations. According to the clause, ...the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication ... express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion. ...
<<image002.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
