Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Fired Officer Says Christian Beliefs Prohibit Him From Training Women

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,575
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)

    Fired Officer Says Christian Beliefs Prohibit Him From Training Women

    A North Carolina man fired as a sheriff’s deputy after refusing to train a new female officer because of her gender alleges in a lawsuit he is a victim of religious discrimination.
    Manuel Torres, an evangelical Christian and former Lee County sheriff’s deputy, asserts that his faith prohibits him from being alone with women who aren’t his wife ― which he said is exactly what would happen if he agreed to train a female deputy.
    The 51-year-old is suing the Lee County’s Sheriff Office, claiming he was fired for asking to be exempt from training the woman.
    The suit, filed in federal court in North Carolina on July 31, also names as defendants two other small towns Torres says subsequently denied him a job because of his religious beliefs about interacting with women. He seeks more than 300,000 in damages, as well as reinstatement by the sheriff’s office.

    https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/bill...221108979.html

    The job requirement is to be able to train men and women.

    Seems like your religious beliefs disqualify you.

    The MS Governor case is interesting...
    The Voice of Reason

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,337
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    It does seem his beliefs could disqualify him from the job.. Especially if he knew going in, you might need to train women...

    NOW if he went in NOT being told that, and they knew his deeply helld beliefs, and now THEY are the ones pushing this on him, i can see his side of the argument..

  3. #3
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,937
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    But did the job description say that the training would be one on one?

    I think using religion as an excuse for this is a load of crap, BUT... men refusing to be alone with women in the workplace is on the rise, and understandably so. Me too movement, anyone? It's the Mike Pence Rule (IIRC, it was called the Billy Graham rule prior to Mike Pence popularizing it).

    Frankly, I have no problem being alone with a female co-worker, so long as she meets the following criteria:

    1. She's higher than me.
    2. She's equal to me.
    3. If she's lower, I have absolutely zero impact on her career progression, bonuses, etc - AND she's fully aware of this.

    Thankfully, ALL women at my job meet one of those three criteria for now.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  4. #4
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,973
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Correct, this type of thing was / is called the "Billy Graham" rule; VPOTUS uses it. Where I think the police officer is wrong (I’ll lose) is that the 'rule' isn't a tenant / requirement of the religion, but a practice used by some people to avoid issues of perception, indiscretion, accusations etc. similar to the practice of some LDS folks of not drinking soda, there is no doctrinal requirement ... the prohibition is on coffee and tea not caffeine specifically.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,575
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Correct, this type of thing was / is called the "Billy Graham" rule; VPOTUS uses it. Where I think the police officer is wrong (I’ll lose) is that the 'rule' isn't a tenant / requirement of the religion, but a practice used by some people to avoid issues of perception, indiscretion, accusations etc. similar to the practice of some LDS folks of not drinking soda, there is no doctrinal requirement ... the prohibition is on coffee and tea not caffeine specifically.
    What if it were doctrine? Or doctrine for a small sect?

    ...employing him may result in lack of equal opportunity for the women.
    The Voice of Reason

  6. #6
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,973
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    What if it were doctrine? Or doctrine for a small sect?

    ...employing him may result in lack of equal opportunity for the women.
    If so, employing him likely would violate EO rights for females; and also ... if so refusing to employ him based on his doctrinal religions requirements would violate his EO rights.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  7. #7
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,973
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    What if it were doctrine? Or doctrine for a small sect?

    ...employing him may result in lack of equal opportunity for the women.
    If so, employing him likely would violate EO rights for females; and also ... if so refusing to employ him based on his doctrinal religions requirements would violate his EO rights.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •