Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Chandler-based Serrano's Mexican Restaurants has won a victory in a seven-year court battle over allegations of religious discrimination.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's request for a new trial.

The 9th Circuit said a jury verdict in 2005 in favor of Serrano's was supported by "the clear weight of the evidence."

The EEOC sued the restaurant chain in 2002 on behalf of Terra Naeve, a former manager, who alleged her religious beliefs were not accommodated under the Civil Rights Act.

Naeve led an after-hours Bible study group that included three of her subordinates. The company's code of conduct prohibits supervisors from socializing with subordinates outside of work in an effort to avoid sexual harassment and unfair treatment of employees.

During the trial, Serrano's President Ric Serrano testified he had offered Naeve other options that would have allowed her to continue teaching the Bible to restaurant employees, including a job transfer. No compromise was reached, and Naeve was let go.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/chan ... o0121.html


Great decision!

I'm no bible thumper, in fact, I'm pretty much an atheist, but I'm not sure that this is a good thing. I have always had a problem with an employers right to tell an employee how they spend their free time. I think it is an invasion of privacy, and as long as it can't be proven to adversely effect their performance or the profitability of the company, I don't see how it's any of their business. This is a bad decision IMHO.

death dealer wrote:I'm no bible thumper, in fact, I'm pretty much an atheist, but I'm not sure that this is a good thing. I have always had a problem with an employers right to tell an employee how they spend their free time. I think it is an invasion of privacy, and as long as it can't be proven to adversely effect their performance or the profitability of the company, I don't see how it's any of their business. This is a bad decision IMHO.

Would you allow a company to prohibit a supervisor from dating a subordinate?

Serrano's was trying to avoid the situation (which was happening) where the manager was rewarding those that attended her bible studies, and punishing those that didn't.

Serrano's bent over backwards to accomidate this employee. She refused to follow company policy, which was upheld.

It doesn't matter whether it was Bible Study, or Glee Club.

dbackjon wrote:

death dealer wrote:I'm no bible thumper, in fact, I'm pretty much an atheist, but I'm not sure that this is a good thing. I have always had a problem with an employers right to tell an employee how they spend their free time. I think it is an invasion of privacy, and as long as it can't be proven to adversely effect their performance or the profitability of the company, I don't see how it's any of their business. This is a bad decision IMHO.

Would you allow a company to prohibit a supervisor from dating a subordinate?

Serrano's was trying to avoid the situation (which was happening) where the manager was rewarding those that attended her bible studies, and punishing those that didn't.

Serrano's bent over backwards to accomidate this employee. She refused to follow company policy, which was upheld.

It doesn't matter whether it was Bible Study, or Glee Club.

I agree with both you and DD. She shouldn't be able to use it against employees who don't go to bible study, but a flat-out no fratinization policy is a bit overboard don't you think?

IMO, it builds resentment towards management more than anything. The woman should have just agreed to not hold it against people who don't show and the company should be responsible for enforcing that their management wouldn't be biased against non-group members.

Where does it say she gave the participating subordinates preferential treatment?

travelinman67 wrote:Where does it say she gave the participating subordinates preferential treatment?

I have been following this case for years - there were articles in the PHX New Times in 2004 and 2005 about the case.

Basically, she became a born-again Christian, wanted to impose her view of Christianity on her employees (the Serranos are very religious Catholics), was asked to do so in a different way. A reasonable accomodation was offered (several, actually). She refused, and was rightfully fired.

Mixed emotions on this one...

How far does a company have the right to go...some have tried banning their employees from smoking or drinking after work...

To ban intimate relationships between managers and employees is one thing...to outright outlaw mutually agreeable social relationships...that's another...

And any company should have a policy banning preferential treatment by a manager...

On the other hand, if you set out rules prior to employment, and the employee (managers are employees) accepts the job with the set of conditions, then the employer should have the right to discipline an employee who violates the rule...

dbackjon wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Where does it say she gave the participating subordinates preferential treatment?

I have been following this case for years - there were articles in the PHX New Times in 2004 and 2005 about the case.

Basically, she became a born-again Christian, wanted to impose her view of Christianity on her employees (the Serranos are very religious Catholics), was asked to do so in a different way. A reasonable accomodation was offered (several, actually). She refused, and was rightfully fired.

Then absent the nature of the discrimination, be it religious, ethnic, boob size, whatever...this is simply a case of her being terminated for discrimination.

travelinman67 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
I have been following this case for years - there were articles in the PHX New Times in 2004 and 2005 about the case.

Basically, she became a born-again Christian, wanted to impose her view of Christianity on her employees (the Serranos are very religious Catholics), was asked to do so in a different way. A reasonable accomodation was offered (several, actually). She refused, and was rightfully fired.

Then absent the nature of the discrimination, be it religious, ethnic, boob size, whatever...this is simply a case of her being terminated for discrimination.

Yes, but she tried to make it a "I'm a persecuted Christian" case.

dbackjon wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Then absent the nature of the discrimination, be it religious, ethnic, boob size, whatever...this is simply a case of her being terminated for discrimination.

Yes, but she tried to make it a "I'm a persecuted Christian" case.

...persecuted by the Catholic owners...

travelinman67 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Yes, but she tried to make it a "I'm a persecuted Christian" case.

...persecuted by the Catholic owners...

I think she meant "inquisition".

I could care less what the social interaction was about. A company shouldn't be able to dictate a private citizens life outside of work in such a completele arbitrary way. If she was punishing her subordinates for not playing on her team, then that is different. But neither you nor the article pointed that out. So she wasn't fired for hosting a get together, she was fired for being a bitch.

death dealer wrote:I could care less what the social interaction was about. A company shouldn't be able to dictate a private citizens life outside of work in such a completele arbitrary way. If she was punishing her subordinates for not playing on her team, then that is different. But neither you nor the article pointed that out. So she wasn't fired for hosting a get together, she was fired for being a bitch.

Just cause in my book.

death dealer wrote:I could care less what the social interaction was about. A company shouldn't be able to dictate a private citizens life outside of work in such a completele arbitrary way. If she was punishing her subordinates for not playing on her team, then that is different. But neither you nor the article pointed that out. So she wasn't fired for hosting a get together, she was fired for being a bitch.

Somewhat agree. However as a business owner I would want to fire at will. That woman was a nuisance and her activities exposed the company to potential lawsuits. The company did the right thing.

I'm sure there's more to this. They unanimously won the case.

I think it was a good ruling based on what I've seen here on it. An employer won't fire a good employee until the problem begins to outweigh the benefit they provide. They saw that problem gaining weight and decided to trim down a bit after giving her an out. Businesses just work better when they have the ability to run without this kind of interference.

D1B wrote:

death dealer wrote:I could care less what the social interaction was about. A company shouldn't be able to dictate a private citizens life outside of work in such a completele arbitrary way. If she was punishing her subordinates for not playing on her team, then that is different. But neither you nor the article pointed that out. So she wasn't fired for hosting a get together, she was fired for being a bitch.

Somewhat agree. However as a business owner I would want to fire at will. That woman was a nuisance and her activities exposed the company to potential lawsuits. The company did the right thing.

I'm sure there's more to this. They unanimously won the case.

Really? Aren't you pro-union? I may be mistaken.....(serious inquiry)...

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:I think it was a good ruling based on what I've seen here on it. An employer won't fire a good employee until the problem begins to outweigh the benefit they provide. They saw that problem gaining weight and decided to trim down a bit after giving her an out. Businesses just work better when they have the ability to run without this kind of interference.

Agree. But I am from NC where we are employment at will......we like to think we can terminate for pretty much any reason, but the truth is you better have your documentation together or you're in for a long ride......

Appaholic wrote:

D1B wrote:
Somewhat agree. However as a business owner I would want to fire at will. That woman was a nuisance and her activities exposed the company to potential lawsuits. The company did the right thing.

I'm sure there's more to this. They unanimously won the case.

Really? Aren't you pro-union? I may be mistaken.....(serious inquiry)...

I'm sympathetic to some aspects of the organized labor. However unions, once necessary, for the most part are now a detriment to productivity. I abhor the ridiculous sense of entitlement of union workers.

D1B wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
Really? Aren't you pro-union? I may be mistaken.....(serious inquiry)...

I'm sympathetic to some aspects of the organized labor. However unions, once necessary, for the most part are now a detriment to productivity. I abhor the ridiculous sense of entitlement of union workers.

OK....makes sense....