We have a difficult time, ethically, with religion in the workplace. Not so much with religion, per se, but any expression of belief. Religion is a difficult area for any organization to handle. As an ethics keynote speaker and ethics consultant, I well understand how ethically “treacherous” the topic of religion can be.
Alaska Airlines
Alaska Airlines is the recipient of a nationally publicized EEOC complaint brought by two flight attendants who are claiming “employment discrimination.” What is making the case particularly complex is that the two employees are going after the airlines for their support of the Equality Act.
When they questioned the support, the company is alleged to have retaliated against them for their Evangelical Christian beliefs. Their cause has been taken up by an organization called the First Liberty Institute.
The employees object to the company position that standing up for issues such as gender identity and sexual orientation is a “moral issue.” This goes against the employee beliefs, i.e.,
“[d]efining gender identity or sexual orientation as a moral issue … is … a discriminatory statement.”
Lacey Smith
Flight attendant Lacey Smith was allegedly given a notice of discharge after she raised a question in a company-wide online forum: “As a company, do you think it’s possible to regulate morality?”
Another (unidentified) employee added “Does Alaska support: endangering the Church, encouraging suppression of religious freedom, obliterating women rights and parental rights? ….”
The comments were taken down from the forum, the employees were counseled, and they were fired.
The employees, through the First Liberty Institute have filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC. According to the Institute:
“The corporate ‘canceling’ of our clients by Alaska Airlines makes a mockery of laws that protect religious Americans from employment discrimination…It is a blatant violation of state and federal civil rights laws to discriminate against someone in the workplace because of their religious beliefs and expression. Every American should be frightened if an employer can fire them for simply asking questions based on their religious beliefs about culturally important issues.”
Ethical Inconsistency
I would start this discussion with a simple admonition. Social media is a trap, especially anything posted in a publicly-viewed work sense. The employee forum of an airline is not Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter. Lacey Smith, and the other employee (not identified) should have known that no matter what they posted, it would be scrutinized. This is no unobtainable body of knowledge.
Lacey Smith might have gotten away with her point in a “private” Facebook account, but there is a common-sense approach on an employee page of a company website. If, in her religious fervor, she felt a need to challenge publicly challenge Alaska Airlines, the consequences of her choices should have been understood and accepted.
However, it needn’t have been contentious of policy. She could have criticized the snacks, demeaned a passenger or posted a provocative photo. It is why I strongly endorse and teach social media training programs.
To that end, Lacey Smith as a private citizen, has the option to exercise her first amendment rights. Once she is on the job, puts on that uniform or enters an employee portal, her comments are no longer private.
Again, this is also a gray area.
If Lacey Smith and the other, unidentified woman, posted a racist, anti-Semitic or homophobic statement on social media, and it was well understood what she did for a living, and whom she worked for, she is fair game for a job action.
For example, “I had a passenger the other day who was an obnoxious (slang word for a race or religion) and I wanted to throw him out of a door.” It might very well have been grounds for termination had anyone read it and reported it.
“My Beliefs”
In her statements, Smith talked of her state and federal rights in taking on a company policy. What is the policy that she objected to? Sexual orientation and gender identity. Both are well covered and protected under federal law. Entire bodies of legislation have been created to protect the LGBTQIA+ community. Why? Because for decades, for generations, this class of Americans were brutalized by those claiming their beliefs supported their contentions to dehumanize.
Yes, Lacey Smith was asking a question about what she considered a “culturally important issue,” however, her private thoughts, her church thoughts, her religious thoughts are not the same as openly mocking a company policy.
If the objecting employees felt that Alaska Airlines’ ethical stance was endangering the church, they were well within their rights to join an organization that do not endanger their church. However, using the generic word “church” is also a slippery slope. Alaska Airlines has about 23,000 employees. Many of their “churches” are open in the acceptance of LGBTQIA+ people and, of course, the so-called churches are also temples, synagogues, mosques, ashrams, and every other descriptor.
Ethically, who is to say who is offended or not? The two employees were not canceled as they claim, they canceled themselves. Indeed, they tried to cancel everyone but themselves.
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS!
