Case Summary
The case concerns Christopher Lee Peterson, at the time of events an employee of Wilmur Communications and a follower of the World Church of the Creator. In 2000, Peterson gave an interview to the local paper on WCC, expressing his racist views, which included the support of a known shooter that targeted African-American, Jewish and Asian people. After finding out about the interview, the company president suspended Peterson without pay and later demoted him to a lower pay and responsibility role. Since according to Title VII it is unlawful to discriminate based on religious views, the plaintiff sued the organization for the demotion.
Creativity, or the World Church of the Creator, is a self-proclaimed religion with its beliefs centered around white supremacy and the maintenance of racial purity. The extremist group was established in 1973 by Ben Klassen, and after he committed suicide in 1993 Matt Hale took on the role of the leader (“Creativity Movement”, n.d.). According to the founder, Klassen, the organization and its members strive towards a “total war” against all “goddamned mud races” (“Creativity Movement”, n.d.), as he thought of the White Race as elite and superior to the other races. Although the group believes itself to be a religion, it did not endorse any gods, and considered race to be the most sacred truth (“Creativity Movement”, n.d.). Furthermore, the followers of WCC claimed that Holocaust did not exist, and that a utopian world consists of white people only. Throughout the years, the neo-Nazi organization attracted several violently inclined individuals, which allegedly resulted in numerous attacks.
Peterson, who was a member of the organization, supervised a team of both white and non-white subordinates. In March 2000, the plaintiff appeared in the local newspaper, which was doing a segment on the WCC. The article included the confirmation of Peterson’s views and beliefs as those concordant with the views of the WCC, as well as a photograph of Peterson showing respect to a mass shooter. Although Peterson’s believes were similar to those of the KKK and arguably unethical, his termination was still judged to be unlawful and religiously discriminatory by the court.
Case Questions
An employer’s reaction to the news article
If I was the employer that saw this news article, I would find a legal way to terminate the employee. As an employer, it would be my duty to maintain a functioning and safe workplace. Therefore, seeing an article that could potentially disturb some of the employees would cause me to question whether the person making these claims is a good fit for the company. If the employees are unable to feel safe in the working environment, then as the employer I would be liable for creating such environment. Although, to the best of my knowledge in the scenario, the employee had not acted on his beliefs and had just been expressing them, I would not want to be responsible in the case that he did. Furthermore, the fact that the employee had non-white people in his subordination makes the open support of the racist mass shooter in the paper a relatively explicit threat. Therefore, it would be easier to eliminate the problematic employee from the workplace before he became a bigger problem.
The court’s decision reflection
The court decision is completely valid in legal terms, since the demotion was explicitly reasoned as a result from the employee’s religious beliefs. However, it is surprising that the World Church of the Creator was recognized by the court as a religion in the first place. Firstly, Creativity does not endorse not only any gods but anything metaphysical or mystical. Secondly, Peterson’s religion is quite explicitly based on racism and white supremacy and has previously been linked with violence towards non-white members of the society. Although Creativity follows the definition for a religion requires to judge the case according to Title VII, the morality as described in the White Man’s Bible is generally disruptive. Although morality is subjective in most cases, having a ethic code that bases itself on discrimination and violence for the sake of achieving “purity” goes against a safe and efficient workplace environment. Therefore, although the court’s decision is legal, it is also perfectly in the right of the company to demote Peterson.
An employer’s actions if an employee mistreated non-white employees in the workplace
As the employer, as mentioned above, it would be my duty to maintain the safety of the workplace. Mistreatment of non-white employees by other employees is a serious problem and would require disciplinary hearings to investigate the incident. There is a certain culture in the corporate world to ignore problematic situations for the sake of long-term profit, such as if the abuser was a particularly valuable asset. However, although profit is generally one of the most important goals of a company, as an employer I would commit to valuing the employees. This would entail disciplining those that disturb the workplace, without showing favoritism. Therefore, depending on the decided degree of offence, the punishment for such mistreatment could range between a warning and termination.