In recent news there has been a lawsuit involving the famous supermarket chain, Kroger, and two former employees. This lawsuit was filed in 2020, but in recent weeks has been settled. The specific grocery store in the suit was located in Conway, Arkansa. The two former employees argued that their job termination violated their civil rights and was discriminatory towards their religion. The employees were fired because they refused to wear their uniform, which had a heart design that they thought to resemble a pride flag. The supermarket argued that they did not fire the employees on the basis of their religious beliefs. The supermarket believed that the logos on their uniforms are not meant to resemble or express support for the LGBTQ community. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, whose main purpose is to investigate discrimination in a working environment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argued that the two employees were unlawfully fired and discriminated against on a basis of their religious beliefs. The two employees, Trudy Rickerd and Brenda Lawson, have strong religious belief that homosexual relationships are sinful. When the supermarket had originally made the change to the uniform, about ten employees disapproved of it because of the logo's similarities to the pride flag. The supermarket, back in 2012, had made the logo as a way to rebrand the company. The company had four new commitments oriented around customer service, none of which were related to support for the LGBTQ community, and the heart was meant to express the supermarket's new commitments. The disapproval from the employees, according to court documents, could also have stemmed from a press release that went out from Kroger which indicated the company was a great place to work for LGBTQ people. However in Conway the employees had a culture of hate for the LGBTQ community. The plaintiffs argued that they were significantly affected because they wanted to retire after Kroger, and that the decision not to wear the uniform was not judgment, but rather them choosing not to endorse the LGBTQ community. Kroger settled in the case and is set to pay both employees about $70,000 in the settlement.
The main issue at stake here is whether the decision of Kroger to fire the two employees because of their refusal to wear company uniform, with alleged LGBTQ support detail, violates the individuals First Amendment rights?
In my opinion I agree with the former employees and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . Both the plaintiffs have strong religious beliefs. They had strong religious beliefs that homosexuality is sinful, and they feel that the uniform was directly promoting and supporting the LGBTQ community, which directly went against the individual's religious beliefs. In Holt v. Hobbs the court ruled that prison officials violated the First Amendment by refusing to let an inmate grow his beard for religious reasons. In this instance the free exercise and religious liberty of the inmate is protected under the First Amendment. The court argued in this decision that the prison did not have a compelling interest in restricting beards for religious reasons. In the case presented there is not a compelling state interest in making everyone wear the uniform. The grocery store can take less restrictive means in distinguishing between employees and customers, that does not require the employees to go against their religion. In addition, the store can take less restrictive means in presenting their customer service campaign and commitments. The plaintiffs feel by wearing the Kroger uniform they are directly endorsing the LGBTQ community. The grocery store argued that the purpose of the logo was not to endorse support for the LBGTQ community, however there were several employees who felt the opposite when the design was presented and eventually put onto the uniform. In addition the argument in this case is not wether the symbol itself is representative of the pride flag, but rather if the firing of the employees because of their perspective of the uniform is discriminatory. I would agree that firing the employees for not wearing the uniform when they believe the uniform directly contradicts their religious beliefs is not constitutional and does not respect an individual's free exercise. It is clear the reason for firing the employees is because of their decision to not wear the uniform, and this decision from the employees has religious motivation. Therefore, the decision to fire the employees is directly discriminatory towards the employees religious views and clearly violates the individuals civil rights.
11 comments:
Excellent post, Emma! I have to agree with you that the former employees had their free exercise rights violated. One thing that I found very interesting is that you mentioned a case about prison and religious beliefs of beards. I would see trimming beards in prison as a compelling state interest in a place where some rights have to be restricted. However, I view the Krogers case differently as there is no higher compelling state interest for LGTBQ+ unity in a grocery store. The owner of the store has the right to use the logo on their employees uniforms, but I believe that the workers should have the right to be exempt from wearing that specific article of clothing for religious reasons.
Great post, Emma! I did initially agree with your analysis and take on this case, however, upon searching what the heart on the uniform looked like, I did not agree, and do not think a court would agree, that the design in any way resembles a pride flag. I also believe that since Kroger never explicitly stated that this symbol on their uniforms represented support for the LGBTQ+ community, that the employees' religious beliefs are not being violated, and that they therefore resigned on their own terms. I think that if there was symbolism on the required uniform that was explicitly stated to represent the LGBTQ+ community there would be an issue of the violation of the employees rights here, however, this Is not the case.
Great post! This is especially interesting because the employees and the company disagreed on important facts of this case. The employees held that the logo was tied to LGBTQ+ support, while the grocery store denied this claim. Regardless, I would have to say that the grocery store's intent does not matter in terms of the way it would be received by the public. If the workers wore this logo and people perceived it to be a symbol of support for something that they sincerely disagree with for religious reasons, I believe a burden is created regardless of the true purpose stated by the grocery store. Though it is definitely a tricky issue, I believe that the free exercise of the workers is of the greatest importance.
I also agree with Erin; I looked up images of the logo and did not find that it appeared to be a symbol of LGBTQ+ pride. However, I could see how some individuals would think this and I believe that their religious views have to be respected in this case.
You had a great post! I do agree with your stance that the employees were wrongfully fired because of their religious beliefs. How could Kroger possibly argue against something that violates a personal religious belief such not supporting LGBTQ+? I also think that if Kroger could have offered alternative uniforms for the employees that did not violate their religious beliefs than there would have been no violation of the Free Exercise clause. Looking at previous comments, the facts in this case are interesting. Some argue that the rainbow heart has no correlation with the LGBTQ+ community, while the workers found that it did. It would be interesting to see how the Court would decide such a case.
Very interesting post! I think that after looking at the logo there is absolutely no association with LGBTQ+ flags that could be drawn. I do not think this is a direct burden on the employees and, additionally, they are not guaranteed employment at Kroger. If Kroger finds them not following company rules they have the right to find someone who will.
This is a very interesting topi to think about. The question I go back and worth on is does wearing uniform that the company you chose to work for override your beliefs. One case we saw this in was where a member of the jewish community wanted to wear a kippah with his military uniform. I believe these situations are different as a grocery store is not the united states military. Overall I must agree with your side and believe that the store could have accommodated the workers beliefs by removing the patch as I do not think this would put a burden on the company whatsoever.
This case is very interesting to read! I agree I do not think the employers should have been forced to wear a uniform they found violated their religious beliefs. I do not think, like the military, a grocery store needed uniformity in appearance. I think by forcing them to wear something that goes against what they believe and then firing them violates their First Amendment.
I think this is a difficult case to examine. Several Kroger employees are stating that the uniforms seem to be endorsing the LGBTQ+ community, while Kroger is stating the company isn't endorsing the LGBTQ+ community at all. I looked at the heart logo and saw no correlation. I think in order to understand the 2 employees' side better, I would need more proof or information about their religious affiliations to judge if they are being genuine, but if the company is saying the logo is not related to PRIDE or LGBTQ+ communities, the employees are refusing to wear them because they don't like them. Kroger should be allowed to fire them for this.
Great post, first of all it is a choice to be working there. The store came out and said that the logo has no correlation with the pride movement and that should have been enough for the two employees, they are the ones that associated the logo with the LGBTQ community not the store. I remember reading dissent in a case in which a judge said something along the lines that just because a citizen believes that something is offensive that does not mean that they are above the law. I think that we would have to prove the sincerity of these two employees. If they do not like the uniform of the place where they choose to go to work they should probably find another job.
Is a sticker really that much of a violation of their religious beliefs? To think that a sticker would interfere with their ability to do their job that much is a bit outrageous. Even if homosexuality is against their religious beliefs, there is no evidence to show that the employees were threatened with termination for refusing to wear the uniform. Therefore I am confused as to what they are being awarded the settlement for...is it simply for espousing those beliefs and being a Kroger employee?
Post a Comment