Business 8th Edition by Marianne Jennings

Exercise 7

Buonanno v AT T Broadband , LLC
313 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D.Colo. 2004)
Give It to Me Straight: Does Title VII Protect My Religious Beliefs?
Facts
Albert Buonanno (plaintiff) was employed by AT T from January 10, 1999, to February 1, 2001. Initially he worked as a cable dispatcher, scheduling jobs and dispatching field technicians.
Mr. Buonanno is a Christian who believes that the Bible is divinely inspired. He attempts to live his life in accordance with its literal language. Because the Bible requires that he treat others as he would like to be treated, Mr. Buonanno values and respects all other AT T employees as individuals. He never has nor would he discriminate against another employee due to differences in belief, behavior, background, or other attributes. However, his religious beliefs prohibit him from approving, endorsing, or esteeming behavior or values that are repudiated by Scripture.
In January 2001, AT T promoted a new "Employee Handbook" that addressed "How We Work: Employee Guidelines" and "Doing What's Right: Business Integrity Ethics Policies."
AT T maintains a "Certification Policy" which provides that "[e]ach AT T Broadband employee must sign and return the Acknowledgment of Receipt and Certificate of Understanding form indicating that you have received a copy of the handbook and the AT T Code of Conduct and that you will abide by our employment policies and practices."
AT T's diversity policy reads as follows:
The company places tremendous value on the fresh , innovative ideas and variety of perspectives that come from a diverse workplace. Diversity is necessary for a competitive business advantage - and the company is competing for customers in an increasingly diverse marketplace. To make diversity work to our advantage , it's our goal to build an environment that:
• respects and values individual differences
• reflects the communities we serve
• promotes employee involvement in decision making
• encourages innovation and differing perspectives in problem solving allozos our diverse employee population to contribute richly to our growth.
We want to create a team that is diverse , committed and the most talented in America. To that end , AT T Broadband has a "zero tolerance" policy toward any type of discrimination , harassment or retaliation in our company. Each person at AT T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize , respect and value the differences among all of us. This is demonstrated in the way we communicate and interact with our customers , suppliers and each other every day.
Mr. Buonanno questioned the meaning of the third sentence in the second paragraph which reads "Each person at AT T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us." The court refers to this portion of the diversity policy as the Diversity Philosophy. He believed that some behavior and beliefs were deemed sinful by Scripture, and thus that he could not 'Value\ 7 that is, hold in esteem or ascribe worth to, such behavior or beliefs without compromising his own religious beliefs. Mr. Buonanno was fully prepared to comply with the principles underlying the Diversity Philosophy However, he could not comply with the challenged language insofar as it apparently required him to "value" the particular belief or behavior that was repudiated by Scripture. Accordingly, if the challenged language literally required him to do so, he could not sign the Certificate of. Understanding, agreeing to "abide by" such language.
Mr. Buonanno consulted with his pastor, Scott McCall, of the Crow Hill Bible Church for guidance. Mr. Buonanno also discussed his concerns with his supervisor, Mr. Dunn, a practicing Christian. Mr. Dunn did not believe that the challenged language was inconsistent with his personal, religious beliefs as a Christian, but he urged Mr. Buonanno to clarify the issue in a written communication to his AT T Human Resources Manager, Susan Batliner. Mr. Buonanno slipped a letter under Ms. Batliner's office door with the following included:
I can't comply with the ambiguous statement under "Diversity'' on pages six and seven [ of the Handbook]. ,.. As an AT T employee I am fully cognizant of the fact that there is diversity among its members. Since being hired on January 20, 1999 , 1 have indiscriminately conducted myself in a professional manner with all people.... However ,... I believe it's wrong for any individual or organization to attempt to persuade me to fully respect and fully value any differences which are contrary to God's word. In order for me to comply with this diversity statement in the company handbook , I would have to deny my faith; this I will not do. It is this reason that prohibits me from signing the certificate of acknowledgment.... As an AT T employee I give you my word that I will continued [ sic] to conduct myself in the same professional manner. But I can't allow any group or individual to choose for me what I must respect or place value on.
The letter was accompanied by an unsigned copy of the Certificate.
Ms. Batliner discussed the letter with her superior, Debora Davis, the Vice President of Human Resources for AT T's Colorado operation. Ms. Batliner was instructed to ask questions, get information, and explain the importance of the diversity policy Ms. Davis told Ms. Batliner that signing the Certificate was required of all employees, but she did not authorize Ms. Batliner to terminate Mr. Buonanno's employment if he did not sign.
A meeting among Ms. Batliner, Mr. Buonanno, and Mr. Dunn lasted between 30 and 40 minutes. When Mr. Buonanno attempted to clarify the meaning of the Certificate by asking how it would apply to the beliefs of "neo-Nazi skinheads," Ms. Batliner refused to engage in what she characterized as a "philosophical debate."
Without clarification as to the identified language, Mr. Buonanno explained, he could not sign the Certificate. Ms. Batliner terminated his employment and proceeded to conduct an exit interview. Mr. Buonanno filed suit against AT T for its failure to accommodate his religious beliefs. Following a bench trial, the court issued its decision.
Judicial Opinion
KRIEGER, District Judge
AT T believes that its Diversity Philosophy helps it better acquire customers, understand customer needs, and increase its sales and provide better customer service. For example, Senior Vice President of Human Resources David Brunick testified that in the past, English-speaking employees recognizing the differences between themselves and Spanish-or Russian-speaking employees allowed the company to expand into Spanish-and Russian-speaking markets that were otherwise unavailable.
AT T maintains that permitting an employee to certify anything other than full agreement with all of the language in the Handbook would destroy the competitive advantage its Diversity Philosophy creates. Doing so would demonstrate to other employees that AT T's policies were not uniformly applied and enforced.
Five corporate officials testified about the challenged language..
Buonanno was presented with a choice of between accepting the language of the Handbook without any additional clarification and signing the Certificate, or losing his employment.
The Plaintiff articulated two distinct theories of religious discrimination in his closing argument: (i) direct religious discrimination; and (ii) failure to accommodate.
Here, Buonanno did not establish that the actions taken against him were motivated by his failure to follow his employer's religious beliefs. With the exception of Dunn, nothing in the record establishes that any of his supervisors held particular religious beliefs, much less that their beliefs were in conflict with Buonanno's. Dunn, Buonanno's immediate supervisor, is a Christian. Thus, Buonanno has not proved that he was terminated based on his failure to follow the religious beliefs of his employer. Accordingly, AT T prevails on this claim...
Where an employer has made no efforts to accommodate the religious beliefs of an employee before taking action against him, the employer may only prevail if it shows that no accommodation could have been made without undue hardship.
A proposed accommodation poses an "undue hardship" on the employer if it bears more than a de minimis cost or significant impact on efficiency, or disrupts a bona fide seniority system. Trans World Airlines , Inc. v Hardison , 432 U.S. 63, 84, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977)..
Buonanno established that he has a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with an employment policy. As Buonanno stated in his written communication to Batliner, his religion teaches that certain (unidentified) behavior is sinful, yet the challenged language requires him to "value" differences among employees presumably, some of those "differences" might involve conduct proscribed by Buonanno's religion....
AT T must either show that it offered a reasonable accommodation, or to show that it was unable reasonably to accommodate Buonanno's religious needs without undue hardship on the conduct of its business. AT T failed to offer any accommodation, thus the sole question is whether it could have accommodated Buonanno's belief without undue hardship. AT T contends that it could not have carved out an exception to the "Diversity Policy" for Buonanno without diminishing the value of the "policy" as a whole...
Had Batliner, Davis, Brunick, or Wilson ever explained that they understood the challenged language to have a figurative, rather than literal, meaning and listened to his concerns, the issue could have been resolved without any need for accommodation. Accordingly, AT T has failed to show that it could not have accommodated Buonanno's beliefs without undue hardship.
... AT T could nevertheless have accommodated Buonanno without suffering undue hardship.
What mistake did the AT T supervisors and executives make in dealing with Mr. Buonanno's objections?