"Religious Harassment" Proposed By EEOC
Q: Some fireman, perhaps supported by the union, have challenged this rule,
and the case has received some national coverage.
That is *not* a Title VII sexual harassment case. That is *not* an
EEOC case. That's a labor dispute over work rules. Notice that
no one is claiming to be harassed by the presence of Playboys in
off-duty personal areas.
Can you please provide more information to back up your claims. I am working
only from a television news report, but the facts I heard do not concur with
your characterization.
A: True, this is not an EEOC case. That's obvious from the fact that it's in the courts. However, it was most certainly reported as an anti-harassment rule. I can't *guarantee* that it is predicated upon Title VII, as opposed to some state law, but I believe it is. According to the report I saw, the rule was adopted specifically to combat sexual harassment in the fire stations--those responsible for enacting the rule taking the poisition that the mere presence of Playboys in the fire station (even for individual, private use) adversely contributed to an environment prone to include sexual harassment. Assuming that this is a Title VII case, the relevance to EEOC guidelines should be clear. Though I just glanced at the excerpts you posted, I did not see anything that absolutedly *precluded* the position that the mere presence of religious articles could constitute harassment. If the courts were to uphold the fire stations' anti-Playboy rule (which I sincerely hope and believe they will not), then an argument that the EEOC guidelines implicitly prohibit such articles