Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Is it Religious Discrimination to Force Employee to Wear a "666" Sticker?

by David Doorey November 29, 2011
written by David Doorey November 29, 2011

Great discrimination lawsuit out of the U.S. about whether it is unlawful discrimination to insist that a Christian employee wear a sticker with “666” on it.  “666” is  the sign of the Beast (I recall this from my Iron Maiden daze from High School. Rock on, dude).  We’re doing human rights law in my class now, so this is a fun one for my students to play with.
Here is the Complaint pleading, which has been filed in a Georgia court under the American Civil Rights Act, alleging discrimination on the basis of religion.  When the employee refused to wear the stupid sticker, the employer fired him.
The employer required employees to wear stickers each day with a number reflecting the number of days in which there had not been a workplace accident.  The employee refused to wear the sticker on the fateful “666” day. He asked for religious accommodation, since “666” is the number of the beast in Christianity, and he held a sincere belief that wearing it could condemn him to hell.  Here is a summary of the argument from the law professor blog called The Volokh Conspiracy.
Would firing an employee for refusing to wear a “666” sticker violate the Ontario Human Rights Code?
Well, discrimination in employment on the basis of religion (“creed”) is prohibited.  See Section 5.  Is aversion to “666” caught by creed?  What do you think?  The test appears to be “honesty held belief” in the Ontario Tribunal’s case law.  If the employee has an honestly held belief that wearing the sign of the beast on his body for the day would condemn him to hell, then does that bring the issue under the Code?
Assuming that firing a practicing Christian for refusing to wear a “666” sticker is caught by creed, then the employer would need to find its defence in Section 11 of the Code, which allows indirect discrimination if the discriminating rule is “reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances” and there is no way to accommodate the employee’s aversion to the stupid sticker.

So you tell me:
Is a workplace requirement to wear a sticker with “666” on it “reasonable and bona fide” in the circumstances?
If so, do you think allowing the employee to not wear the ‘666’ sticker on that one day would cause the employer undue hardship?

I have to say that what amazes me most about this case is that there is a boss somewhere out there that thought it was a better idea to provoke litigation over this dumb sticker than to just allow the employee a single day off from acting as a bulletin board for the employer.  Anyone think the boss was right to refuse the employee’s request to take off the ‘666’ sticker?
To be honest, I’m getting worried myself given how many times I’ve just typed ‘666’… damn, did it again.
Hat-tip:  American Workplace Prof Blog

2 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Did Target Purchase Collective Agreements, as Well as Leases from Zellers?
next post
Labour Law Scholarship: Doorey's New Article on Workplace Law Reform

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
51m

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923165Like on Twitter 13646239761740923167Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
2h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
19 Feb

Tenants have associations, but landlords can't just ignore them. Is Landlord Tenant Law the next frontier in Freedom of Association litigation?

@TheLawofWork considers:

“The Striking Absence of Freedom of Association in Landlord and Tenant Law”

https://lawofwork.ca/the-striking-absence-of-freedom-of-association-in-landlord-and-tenant-law/

Reply on Twitter 1362821027458334724Retweet on Twitter 13628210274583347243Like on Twitter 13628210274583347244Twitter 1362821027458334724
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.