Prayer at work?

[CarrieLynne]

my BF works for a small company (under 50 employees)

today at work during an on the clock company party kinda thing the owner/boss said an out loud prayer to everyone before eating....my BF didnt realize it right away and was talking to someone, therefore interrupting the prayer, and was later pulled aside and 'talked to' about respecting the prayer time and "I know your not religious but....' etc

is this not grounds for a lawsuit or is the fact that its under 50 employees exempt them from all responsibility in this sort of thing?

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

1. The key to the question is

company party kind of a thing which I think kind of rules out a law suit kind of a thing. As far as I know there is no law in this country that prohibits the peoples of religion attempts to save you form the temptations of whatever .If there were laws against that, I am sure the Mormons would be sued out of his country . The party sort of a thing is off time actually, and so his choice was to either stay or leave. That is a choice,and according to you-he chose to stay and he did not express his religious predilection if he has one and he did not state he is atheist.And he did not protest the action or officially forward a written grievance. It all came down to a choice-he stayed put.

[CarrieLynne]

2. well he couldnt leave, he was on the clock...

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

3. I think he was expected to remain silent.

Define party kind of a thing. And ,has he checked it out by confronting his issues with other employees ?Is it a sort of a ,kind of a unwritten unspoken rule?
You know-when it doubt-check it out .

Some people for some reasons feel the need to clap at the Seattle symphony kind of a thing ,and they stop for some reason ,perhaps they sense it is inappropriate . That may be because they find they are but a few in the whole of the audience that are clapping. At a different point in the same performance everybody claps.

Apparently from what little there is to go on based on what you wrote, could it be nobody clued him in about the boss's religion ? Do you think a boss would have a hard time finding at least five things wrong yer bf did or will do ? !

It's just a thought. All I am saying is that it just may be he hasn't been there long enough to weather in.

On the other hand ,it could be an issue.

[CarrieLynne]

9. hes been there well over a year and

he did know about the bosses religion because the boss isnt shy about bringing it up in meetings or whatever...theres a few guys there that also dont like the religious....presence or influence but the the majority of them are also religious including the boss that spoke with him about interrupting the owner.....

the party was a typical office party thing i guess...pizza, announcing the names of those who had bdays or anniversarys that month....

but it WAS on the clock.....in payroll terms.....on the clock means no you cant leave....

[jtuck004]

4. Talked to? So they used their power over his job to threaten him

for not bowing to their religious practice.

PURPOSE: This transmittal covers the issuance of Section 12 of the new Compliance Manual on “Religious Discrimination”. The section provides guidance and instructions for investigating and analyzing charges alleging discrimination based on religion.

here

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits race, color, religion, sex, and national origin discrimination. Title VII applies to:

employers with fifteen (15) or more employees

here

I have no idea if this would help you or not, and I am NOT suggesting he act, that would be between him and his attorney. But it's nice to know what the laws are...and remember to document everthing, even a timed, dated handwritten note done AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER. Just a little Google work for you...

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

5. Just guessing but

I rather suspect the in house party kind of a thing was also some form of briefing -everybody up to speed sort of thing in a casual setting- like the conference room.Since it occurred during work hours-again just guessing ,I would assume there was a bit of business formality which means when the boss steps up ,that will always require everyone's undivided attention - actually it is the boss who kicks it all off . The order of business first ,than let the party begin . That is the formality of a in house party sort of a thing or free luncheon.

Just guessing but it may be the person who was allegedly violated was actually ill informed about formalities in the work place in a casual setting -such as a party sort of a thing.

Perhaps the boss in question is one who would forgo the business first aspect of (IT) and go for the prayer thus let the feast begin. That could be if my suspicions are correct better than oh say 30 ,40 minutes of the boss's business first.

It seems the bf missed something having to do with not noticing the boss requiring everyones attention. So I am equating that to oh say falling asleep in the conference room when the boss is talking strictly business.

I think you can call that in house formalities and there are rules which are also code or code of conduct.

One of those rules is you never get caught snoozing when the boss is about to speak,and you must always know beforehand when the boss will speak.

The point being it seems to me ,the so called violated one may be way out of the loop down the avenues of in house formalities.
But I could be wrong. On the other hand I asked a receptionist to look at this, and having had no formal training in in-house formalities, she said much of it is actually common sense.

So , it is always the boss that says let the party begin and you wait for the boss to have his or her say and until the boss has had his or her say there is no party kind of thing therefore it is formal . And this is simple,- on the executive end I would not bother to go that deep into it but ,he does have job right ?

Falling asleep in the conference room during a conference usually leads to a voluntary resignation before it becomes forced.You just don't do it or if you do, you sure as hell don't do it during the boss's presentation.

And you sure as hell do not carry on with jolly sort of conversation oblivious to the boss's presence when he or she is about to address the staff.Again common sense.

I think .

[jtuck004]

6. Big difference between the boss talking and praying.

They were on the clock, according to the OP - that is paid time, with the employee actions directed by the company. He was threatened for not acting like the religion prescribes, while he was being paid. That is illegal. I do see your point, but he didn't fall asleep, and he wasn't talking during a "rah-rah sell those refrigerators" business speech, presentation, or discussion of management goals. It was a public prayer and they were using the threat of the job to force him to comply. Will it be remembered next time they do reviews?

They are trying to force adherence to a religion this person doesn't believe in (I think) in a country where we thought it was so important to our democracy that we banned, by law, such discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Pick any of those for a little contrast. Say the boss decided to talk about his belief that women should be home in the kitchen, not working and leaving the kids to be raised by strangers. That he didn't think they should take off so many days, or that they just didn't work as hard as the guys, so he didn't feel like he should pay them so much, or something along that line. Would it be ok if he didn't say that all the time, just when there were these "parties", and he felt like unburdening himself a bit. And a woman talked during his speech, and was later "talked to" for interrupting. Will that be remembered when it comes time to do reviews?

Would it be common sense that should should pay special attention, just keep her mouth shut, because the party can't begin until the boss finishes, and she should be respectful no matter what? It was just a "little" misogynous, after all.

I don't see the difference, but ymmv.

If it were me I might continue to do the same thing, if I had another way to make a living for awhile. With any luck, when they fire me, they would write something on my dismissal that says I wouldn't be quiet during company prayers. Backed up with my written logs that could be a valuable souvenir, I suspect.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

7. Where did you read public prayer and where exactly did you read

about a direct threat? Or I suppose the party kind of a thing would be considered public or a in house prayer.
etc. does not in my opinion even remotely reflect a threat and I think and I know that there is a very big difference between that of having been reprehended and that of having been threatened .I seriously beg to differ because for one, there is lack of information and for two the posters view to it is hear-say.

Now, I did not say there is not cause to consider a legal standing in this particular situation/incident what have you. But etc. does mean a god damned thing and neither does hear- say legally or otherwise.

I should wonder why none of the bf's co workers clued him in the boss was about say a prayer over the top of the gathering ? !

I mean you take what little there is to go on apart and it's wtf ? !!
Oh yes hear-say ! etc.

I think there is far more to it .

He does have a job right ?

Without facts it's just a gripe from someone who was not there which is hear-say.

[jtuck004]

8. From the OP

the owner/boss said an out loud prayer to everyone before eating.... and the OP wrote that the BF was later pulled aside and 'talked to' > Talked to implies someone with some authority did not think his behavior was appropriate. If he ignored them, and continued to ignore them, the ONLY and ultimate solution is to take his job away - the reason laws against discrimination exist. Maybe his co-workers didn't clue him in because they know that discrimination, by forcing someone to bow to religious superstition is illegal in this country.

Wasn't my OP. It could be a lot of things, "hear-say" among them. Except for referenced material, (and sometimes that), virtually everything on the board could be termed "hear-say" or anecdotal. That's belaboring the obvious, however, and I don't see what that adds to the discussion. Might also be a person who was really offended and hurt by the turn of events. No way to tell, but irrelevant to my action.

I sent a link so they could learn more. I didn't take a blood oath to swear to the OP's veracity.

BF had a job, apparently - whether BF still does is unknown. But children working for slave wages in the fields of SE Washington had a job as well. Those growers just paid a fine for their illicit behavior in profiting from the labor of children. Just because someone has a job doesn't mean things are good.

Bye

[CarrieLynne]

10. thank you!!