Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Employment Law
Do the employer's actions here seem to be reasonable to you (both those in response to diversity and in response to the employee's reaction)?
In Peterson vs. Hewlett Packard, the employer's actions are reasonable. This is because they are trying to promote tolerance and respect for others. The only way these objectives are achieved is by showing the importance of everyone to the organization. This is regardless of their racial group, sexual orientation or gender. These practices are designed to create a workplace that is neutral and respects everybody's contribution.
In response to Peterson's reaction, Hewlett Packard executives told him that the religious quotes directed at homosexuals are in direct conflict with them. This is because he is promoting discrimination and hatred against certain groups of individuals. To make matters worse, they asked Peterson multiple times to remove them and gave him time off (with pay) to think about his actions. After he returned is when, he demanded that Hewlett Packard remove their posters in exchange for him taking down his quotes. In this case, Peterson is trying to engage in religious blackmail to create changes in company policies and procedures. As a result, Hewlett Packard acted appropriately...
Once it came to the point of blackmail, is when they terminated Peterson for insubordination.
Would you have balanced the two sides here the same as the court? Explain.
Yes. I would have taken the same approach as the court. This is because Peterson is making claims that he was fired for his religious beliefs under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, he is not protected, as his quotes were offensive to these employees and refused to take them down. This is creating a work environment that is encouraging discrimination by allowing this to occur. Under the law, employees are not allowed to discriminate against others. This is because, it clearly states that religion, racial or gender-based practices that are favoring one group over the other are in violation of the law. As a result, to allow Peterson to change the culture based upon his views about homosexuality is creating discrimination against a specific segment. To prevent this, Hewlett Packard must maintain an open and neutral environment. This means that Peterson was given the opportunity to remove them on multiple occasions. After he continued to refuse to do so, is when he was fired for insubordination.
How would you…
The best way to design a diversity program that is not offensive to everyone is to show the importance of diversity to the organization. This means the company must utilize tolerance to illustrate how everyone should be embracing these attributes. The best way to achieve these objectives is to have specific individuals come and talk to employees, who have problems with the program, about the challenges they are facing.
In the case of Peterson, Hewlett Packard could have brought in a religious leader to speak with him about the issue. Peterson more than likely would have cited the 10 Commandments. However, in the New Testament, Christ talks about the importance of turning the other check, openness and love. As a result, Peterson's actions were serving a way of judging on anyone who is gay. In the Bible, it clearly states that God is the final arbitrator. This means that Peterson is trying to act like he is a deity based upon his hatred for homosexuals.
After this, is when Hewlett Packard could have their legal counsel talk with Peterson and show how his actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is when they will provide him with a written warning and have Peterson acknowledge his receipt. After two more written warnings, is the point he will be terminated for refusing to follow these guidelines. This would have made it more difficult for Peterson to sue, as there is a written record illustrating his blatant refusal to abide by the law and company policies / procedures.
We are supported in this by a statement which Justice Kennedy made during a 2003 Supreme Court case on the subject, wherein the Justice observed that "gay people have a 'liberty under the Due Process Clause [that] gives them the full right to engage in [intimate] conduct without intervention of the government.' No matter how unpopular a group's sexual norms, he explained, the government may not 'demean their existence or
If he is opposed to the law, why speak of upholding it? Obama consistently pursues a cautious, bipartisan policy regarding most major social issues -- despite the substantial lack of bipartisanship on the part of conservatives in the U.S. Congress. He has been willing to sacrifice the once-sacrosanct public option for health care, and does not seem to wish to raise divisive topics such as gay marriage before a
"With such a Biblical event casting its shadow over the theological landscape, how could "gay" advocates sidestep the obvious implication that God considered homosexuality a despicable sin?" (Vitagliano, 2003) In the eyes of the Church then, homosexuality is an unnatural and sinful behavior simply because it disobeys the heterosexual human relations, as they were initially intended by the Divinity. "It is a sin grievous to God and repulsive to Christians because
Further arguments that gay marriages do not contribute to the greater good are debatable, based largely on faith-based belief rather than empirical research. In the 1930s, sociologist Edwin Schur wrote extensively about the idea of victimless crimes. For Schur, victimless crimes involve an exchange of commodities or services that are socially-disapproved. These exchanges are voluntary and do not cause anyone harm (Schur, 3). Schur himself cited consensual homosexual unions as an example
Ethics & Gay Rights The author of this report seeks to explain and fathom the current debate that is going on as it relates to gays and other "non-traditional" couples like lesbians, transgenders and so forth getting married much like heterosexual couples in the United States have done for centuries. The author of this report shall be truly ethical and say up front that she supports gay marriage but she will
The framers did not mention police departments or other local governmental units, which has led to some misconceptions about the right of people to arm themselves when protected by municipal government agencies. However, this is because municipal police forces, as they currently exist, did not exist at the time of the Revolutionary War. The closest approximation was a standing army or militia, and the concerns about the citizenry failing