Case Summary
Charita Chalmers, a supervisory employee at the Tulon Company in Richmond, was terminated after sending several letters to other employees’ houses, targeting their religious beliefs and life choices. Chalmers, a devoted Christian, saw it her duty to share her Lord’s gospel, and thought it her duty to inform her coworkers of their “improper conduct” in the face of God. By sending the letters to their homes, she disturbed them and their privacy, which eventually led to termination. Although Chalmers claimed to have the best intentions, she lost her religious discrimination claim against the company.
Chalmers attempted to inform two coworkers, Mr. LaMantia and Ms. Combs, that they need to rectify and strengthen their relationships with God. In the case of LaMantia, Chalmers claimed that he was being untruthful to customers about job turnaround times. However, she failed to explicitly mention his shortcoming in the letter that was sent to his household, which led to a miscommunication. Since Mr. LaMantia was working at a different branch that day, his wife opened the letter and assumed that Chalmers was talking about an affair Mr. LaMantia was having. Although during a call later that day Chalmers explained her intentions, the letter still highly disturbed Mrs. LaMantia and put a strain in the relationship with her husband.
The letter intended for Ms. Combs described “God of Wrath” as someone who dislikes adultery, implying that the illness Ms. Combs was experiencing was a punishment from God for giving birth out of wedlock. The letter highly distressed Ms. Combs, which she related to Craig A. Faber, Vice President of Administration at Tulon, who was in the process of investigating the incident. Faber found that the letters Chalmers was sending were inappropriate in their invasion of privacy, and disruptive to the work relationships, and overall an example of bad judgement from Chalmers’ part. The plaintiff was terminated as a result, causing her to question whether the company’s actions were based on religious discrimination.
Nevertheless, Chalmers did not have a sufficient claim to her religious accommodation case, since she could not satisfy the requirements of the prima facie test. More specifically, the court agreed that Chalmers had enough evidence to prove that her religious beliefs were genuine and that she did get a disciplinary punishment. However, she could not prove that she had warned the company of the letter sending as an element of her faith, which made it impossible for it to accommodate her. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim was deemed a failure and Tulon Company was affirmed as not responsible.
Case Questions
The employer’s action to avoid this situation
It would be difficult to avoid this situation since it is impossible for the employer to be explicit about every single type of behavior that is frowned upon in the office. The employer could not have known that Chalmers was planning on sending the letters or predicted their contents. Therefore, there was no way for the employer to protect himself from the confusion and miscommunication that occurred, or the other employees from the discomfort they experienced. Furthermore, it would be impossible for the employer to predict the reactions of the letters’ recipients, as they could have also been positive. The only possible way the employer could have attempted to avoid this, or similar situations, would be by better protecting the privacy of its employees, such as keeping personal addresses and such private. Nevertheless, it would still not be guaranteed that the addresses could not be acquired outside of the work hours.
A possibility of a different outcome
If the employee had explicitly warned the employer of her intentions, and the employer chose to prohibit such actions, then the situation would have been slightly different. Prohibiting the sending of the letters would be unlikely to be considered disciplinary punishment, therefore, one of the prima facie requirements would be questionable. However, if it was considered disciplinary action, then the employer might have been deemed liable. Although it is within the employer’s rights and duties to protect the employees from each other in a way they deem necessary, this ban could be considered a ban of religious expression. Furthermore, if the employee proceeded to send the distressing letters, without following the direct orders from the employer, it would be within the employer’s rights to terminate her.
A reaction to an employee’s wife call
Although Mrs. LaMantia is not an employee, if a complaint is made about one of my employees, I would be forced to act. It would require an investigation of the incident, in order to establish the culpability and intentions of everyone involved. According to Business Wire, companies today strive to prioritize their employees (McCarty, 2020), which in the case of Mrs. LaMartia’s call would be Chalmers. Therefore, as the employer I would attempt to find a compromising solution that would allow for a peaceful resolution while protecting my employee. However, once Mr. LaMartia, who is also an employee of Tulon, expresses his discontent with the situation and with Chalmers, then the incident becomes more complicated. Since favoritism is generally an unfair strategy in the workplace, the situation would have to be resolved in a way that does not prioritize just one of the parties. In this case, I would reassign Chalmers to a different department so that there is no workplace crisis.