Important Takeaways:
- The EEOC aims to weaponize a federal law prohibiting harassment on the basis of sex in the workplace by forbidding employers to believe that biological sex cannot be altered due to one’s self-identification
- “Accordingly, sex-based harassment includes harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, including how that identity is expressed,” the EEOC claimed
- The proposed rule adds that business owners must shield their employees from “religiously motivated” harassment.
- “Employers are not required to accommodate religious expression that creates, or reasonably threatens to create, a hostile work environment,”
- Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that employers cannot compel employees to endorse speech with which they disagree.
Read the original article by clicking here.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says a public school district in New Jersey broke the law when it fired a substitute teacher who gave a middle school student a Bible.
The federal agency said that Walt Tutka was illegally fired in 2013 after he gave a Bible to a student who approached him privately and asked where “the first will be last and the last will be first” was written.
Tutke told Fox News the situation began in October 2012 when he held the door open for students rushing to be first for lunch. He told the last student in line “just remember, the first will be last and the last will be first.”
The student then approached Tutke several times asking where that phrase was written. Tutke looked it up and told the student where in the Bible it was located but the student wanted to find it for themselves.
“I thought that was going to be the end of it, but it wasn’t,” Tutka said. “He continued to speak with me until one day I happened to have my Bible with me right during lunch. It hit me when he stopped me and I said, ‘Look, here it is right here. Here you go.
“It was a gift,” Tutka added. “[He] said [he] didn’t have one; [he] wanted one.”
The EEOC said “there is reasonable cause to believe that respondent has discriminated against [the] charging party on the basis of religion and retaliation.”
