If there was nothing to back up Mr. Wolfe's story, it would be a difficult case for him. But the EEOC has investigated and they filed the suit, which means they think they have a good case. It also means that the company either denies everything, or they refuse to stop their practices. Plus, as I understand it, the company only posted the job on a church web site, the company's web site is heavy on the god talk, even in their mission statement, and the interviewers ask questions about Mr. Wolfe's religion in both interviews. The plaintiff has asked for a jury trial, so they will make any findings of fact. And since this is a civil case, not a criminal save, the burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the just hs to think it is (even just slightly) more likely the defendant violated the law than it is that the defendant did not violate the law. I just hope that I am able to find out what happens in the end. What I think is most likely is that the company will consult with an attorney who will advise them to settle and stop the practice of discrimination. In that case, it will be unlikely to be covered in the press. If the company goes to court, I feel confident they will lose, but it may only be covered by the local news, if at all.
In the past, I have been asked to interview applicants even though I was not going to be the "decider" about who gets hired. I was told to steer clear of any questions that would not be something we would base a hiring decision on, but especially topics such as religion, race, sexuality, marital status, age, etc.. If the question was asked, the assumption would be that it was part of what we based our decision on, and the wrong kind of question had the potential to get our company sued.
Just because the company you consulted with made DNA sequencing machines does not mean they accept all the implications of the biology behind our knowledge of DNA. It sometimes amazes me how people can hold two (or more) contradictory beliefs in their head, accepting them both (or all).
On Jul 7, 2012, at 17:51, Maj wrote:
Unfortunately, Lyle, I believe any court will side with the company. It will be almost impossible to prove discrimination against the guy, unless the judge takes the company manual as proof, which is unlikely. But why would any non-jebus-freak want to work there, anyway?
Although, I worked with a similar company a few years ago in Lincoln, Nebraska. (I almost thought they might be owned by the same people.) I was an ISO-9000 consultant, and they wanted to get registered. At the end of one of my early days there, the president, VP, and Management Rep started top proselytize me. I told them that, "I hold the supernatural as invalid and reject all forms of mysticism." They accepted, (probably grudgingly), my answer, and we worked well together over the next many months. The Management Rep even sent me a T-shirt celebrating their registration, which I thought very nice, and later, an invitation to an Easter service, which, not surprisingly, I declined. All-in-all, I was never uncomfortable working there and found them to be extremely nice people, with the exception of the 'witnessing'.
I think we also talked about evolution a time or two, but doubt I got through their creationism-bias. The most ironic thing about them is that they made DNA Sequencing machines!