JPL Wins religious discrimination suit
 

Apologies if this has been posted before - I did a couple of quick searches and nothing came back.

A while back, here on GT, there were a couple of threads about this lawsuit.

The results are in:

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/brea...nation-lawsuit


Full proposed statement of decision at http://ncse.com/files/20121130_Propo...f-Decision.pdf

The court's ruling adopting the proposed statement of decision: http://ncse.com/files/20130116_Court...f_Decision.pdf

"The evidence shows that Caltech has a detailed layoff policy, incorporating a layoff ranking process, which (Coppedge's supervisor) carried out. The evidence clearly shows that (Coppedge's co- workers) were more qualified than Coppedge regarding the skills needed on the project going forward, such as SCO/ ITL, web servers, and Linux, and that Coppedge had a history of poor customer relationships, particularly in comparison to the other System Administrators," the judgement said.

Poorly qualified and a jerk. Of course they fired him.

:rock::exercise::devildance::dancingbanana::jumpingjacks::snoopy:

Satan wins another one...:steamed:

"You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved." - Mark 13:13

..

Are you saying the should have kept him, even though others were clearly more qualified, simply because he was religious?

If it's ignorant to consider creationism as a Christian Religious view... why is it religious discrimination even if they did lay him off for accepting creationism? Seems they laid of a scientist that accepts junk science. Can't be religious discrimination if creationism is just an alternative scientific explanation. If creationism IS a religious view... it isn't any kind of science.

My post says what it says.

Lol, ok. Watch out for the boogeyman.

It's not an ignorant claim to claim that, it's obviously a gnostic claim to claim that. Not a smidgen more gnostic to claim that there has never been a deity. Prejudgement should be avoided as much as possible, and tolerance should be pursued, well, if you don't want to see 7 figure legal settlements.

If it can be proven that his supervisors treated him differently because of his beliefs, there is a case here. His lawyers will be very happy about that.

The bold and enlarged red portion of your post above seem to imply that you don't understand a lot about EEO or the first amendment to the Constitution. There is also a very high probability that you do not have a lot of experience in labor relations law. Do some case law searches, and you will realize that being legally protected does not mean that their opinions agree with yours. In fact, discriminating solely based on a religious belief that you disagree with, might open you and your organization up to a rather large amount of financial liability. In fact, a manager posting online that they support that kind of behavior, can open themselves and their employer to a surprising amount of liability, both personal and organizational.

You'd be surprised how much information you can get with the FIOA and title 5 USC 7114(b)(4).

Personal emails between management officials are not off limits. If someone made a statement that a disinterested third party would agree was religiously discriminatory, and he was denied a job based on his religious persuasion, the bosses are screwed.

I don't disagree, but it hardly means "Satan wins". :rofl:

Oh, snap! :cool:

I wonder if I could get my masters in geology, go to work for a oil or mineral prospecting company, immediately switch to a YEC view of geology and then claim religious discrimination when they fired my ass for being useless?

"You won't find any copper over there fellas, the great flood done washed it all away!"

or

"No oil over here. Can't be any oil anywhere. It takes millions of years for that stuff to form and the bible shows the earth to be only 6000 years old!"

Seems like that wouldn't fly.

I don't know this satan fellow. But Prima facie, there are some people that forked up. It'll take time to tell.

Well you got jokes, but when the judges get involved, they are going to have to answer the question.

"why is it religious discrimination even if they did lay him off for accepting creationism?"

The bell will be rung, and you might be surprised how this one might go down.

You seem to have missed a trick, CD.

The case is done and dusted, and Coppedge lost on *every single claim he made*. There cannot be a case when the court has already ruled against you. So you might want to stop arguing as though there were a potential case here. Discovery already done, case was filed in 2010 ... this is the *ruling*.

So you're saying Satan was responsible for his relative lack of qualifications compared to the guys that weren't laid off, and Satan was responsible for him being a dick to his customers?

Randy

One, the decision has already been made. That's what the OP is about. Two, it isn't religious discrimination if someone's religious beliefs prevent them from doing the job they were hired to do. Especially when those beliefs are not central tenets of their religion. That is why some states are trying to enact laws to protect pharmacists against having to dispense birth control and why we don't have a flood of Jehovah's Witnesses as phlebotomists.
Where does the first amendment protect anyone from being fired for being less suited to their position than other employees?
Do you?
And the decision, as detailed in the first post of the thread, concludes that no such discrimination occurred nor was the individual fired on the basis of his religious beliefs. Silly though they may be.

I feel sorry for stupid people.

OK. you're right there.

Looks the claims were weighed and adjudicated. But the statement from another said.

I guess the proper answer should have been, well if that happened, that would be religious discrimination.

Do you use a certain standard to determine this "stupidity", or is it just defined by people who disagree with you?

It's just a lack of manners on his part. Self esteem issues on his part, that's all. He is an interesting caricature.

As I understood his post, he was saying that crationists often substitute creationism (actually "Intelligent Design") as an alternate "scientific" theory of origins - that is at least how they package it when they argue that it isn't religion and should be taught in school.

Beliefs asbout scientific issues are not constitutionally protected against discrimination. So, if the guy believed in intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory, it would be hypocritical to claim religious discrimination if he was fired for it.

However, I agree that all "creationism" isn't called "scientific" by believers - just the ID "theory."

Would you want to defend a manager who, on tape, clearly said:

"I do not like the fact that you believe in intelligent design, other co-workers don't believe in intelligent design, so based on that, you are fired, now get out you fairy tale believing idiot."

It's hard to get that level of proof of discrimination, but if someone is fired only for their religious beliefs, and you can show the nexus, it can be a good case.

Anyway, there are obviously some details in this particular story that aren't very clear, and a lot more to the story, as usual.

No it usually has to do with people that babble idiotically without having any of the information... even though it was freely available.

Let me ask you... is Creationism Science or Religion?

If it was created, and that could be proven, it would be science.