Employee’s Disruptive Behavior Was Reason for Termination, Not Religion
Posted by chapteradmin on Apr. 7, 2021 / Legal Updates / Subscribe 0
By: Carol G. Schley, Clark Hill PLC
A recent decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed circumstances where an employee’s termination was lawful, despite activity by the employee with religious overtones.
In Watson v. Genesys Regional Medical Center, the plaintiff Gail Watson was employed by the defendant hospital. At the time of the incident at issue, she was at step four of the hospital’s five step corrective action policy due to past insubordinate conduct.
The case turned on Ms. Watson’s interactions with her supervisor, Don Kaiser. Initially, they had a cordial relationship. However, after Mr. Kaiser married another man, Ms. Watson began to bring a bag of cards containing religious sayings to daily staff meetings. The cards had sayings such as, “God has everything under control,” “The Devil is a liar,” and “Satan’s power is limited.” During staff meetings, Ms. Watson would position and re-position the bag of religious sayings so that it was always facing Mr. Kaiser. Ms. Watson also would turn her back to Mr. Kaiser and not respond to him when he spoke.
Defendant’s director, Katherine Robertson-Cain, met with Ms. Watson to discuss her conduct toward Mr. Kaiser. Ms. Robertson-Cain told Ms. Watson she could keep her religious cards at work but they could not be visible to her co-workers since she was using them in a disrespectful manner. In response, Ms. Watson questioned whether she was being harassed due to her religious beliefs. Also, during this meeting, Ms. Watson raised her voice, pointed her finger toward Ms. Robertson-Cain, hummed and chanted. After Ms. Watson refused to cease this conduct after being asked to stop, she was suspended and later terminated under step five of the hospital’s corrective action policy.
Ms. Watson subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting various claims, including that her termination was unlawful retaliation based upon her religion. The trial court dismissed this claim on summary disposition, and Ms. Watson appealed. However, the Court of Appeals agreed her termination was lawful. The court recognized that Ms. Watson’s bag contained religious statements, but noted that neither the bag nor Ms. Watson’s religion were the reasons she was terminated:
[T]he focus of that meeting was not on whether the sayings were of a religious nature, but rather whether Watson was displaying material in a disrespectful and inappropriate manner that was disruptive to other workers and whether Watson was acting disrespectfully toward Kaiser, her supervisor, during group meetings, which was disruptive to other workers. Robertson-Caine never completed her investigation of these matters because she had to prematurely end her meeting with Watson due to Watson’s continued inappropriate and disrespectful conduct during the meeting, and Watson was terminated a week later because she was at the last step of GRMC’s corrective-action process, which was termination. The proffered reason for Watson’s termination did not involve her display of her bag with the religious sayings, but her continued disrespectful and insubordinate conduct at the meeting with Robertson-Cain.
Employee performance issues that implicate protected classes such as religion are always tricky, and the best way to handle them will depend upon the specifics facts presented. While the Watson case shows that employees cannot shield themselves from discipline merely by asserting their disruptive or inappropriate conduct relates to their religion, it is also a reminder that employers can best defend against employee claims by following established policies (such as the hospital’s progressive discipline policy in this case) and documenting the legitimate reasons why the employee was disciplined or terminated. While numerous resources are available to employers regarding how to handle religious issues in the workplace, it is always best to consult with legal counsel to ensure the course of action taken is in compliance with the law.
Carol G. Schley is a member of the Detroit SHRM Legal Affairs Committee and an attorney at the law firm Clark Hill PLC. She can be reached at [email protected] or (248)530-6338.
Detroit SHRM encourages members to share these articles with others, inside and outside their organization, as long as its name and logo, and the author’s information, is included in the re-post of the article. April 2021
0 Comments