Slashdot Mirror

The original intent of affirmative action was not to set quotas (and, in fact, quota systems have consistently been struck down, as have strict point-based systems). The original intent was to level the playing field by explicitly disallowing employers and educators from removing people from the candidate pool on the basis of race (and later sex), and to encourage those employers and educators to recruit people from minority, historically disadvantaged groups into the candidate pool (for instance, sending college recruiters to high schools that are majority black in addition to all of the places that they would normally go). Please read the original executive order and tell me where you see quotas mentioned.

Federal laws of that nature only apply to businesses that are involved in "interstate commerce". There are lots of businesses it simply would not affect.

Um....NO.

According to http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-nator.cfm it seems like prohibition from workplace discrimination based on national origin extends to hiring. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome of a lawsuit like this one would be a fat settlement for this indivisual, after which, it will be business as usual at Oracle and at other companies with similar hiring practices.

True, it is not strictly illegal but it is frowned upon because it can be used as evidence against the employer in a discrimination lawsuit.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/

Pre-Employment Inquiries (General)

As a general rule, the information obtained and requested through the pre-employment process should be limited to those essential for determining if a person is qualified for the job; whereas, information regarding race, sex, national origin, age, and religion are irrelevant in such determinations.

Employers are explicitly prohibited from making pre-employment inquiries about disability.

Although state and federal equal opportunity laws do not clearly forbid employers from making pre-employment inquiries that relate to, or disproportionately screen out members based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, or age, such inquiries may be used as evidence of an employer's intent to discriminate unless the questions asked can be justified by some business purpose.

Therefore, inquiries about organizations, clubs, societies, and lodges of which an applicant may be a member or any other questions, which may indicate the applicant's race, sex, national origin, disability status, age, religion, color or ancestry if answered, should generally be avoided.

Similarly, employers should not ask for a photograph of an applicant. If needed for identification purposes, a photograph may be obtained after an offer of employment is made and accepted.

Now while that sounds all well and good it's doubtful that would be enough to win with the legal system favoring employers over employees.

There is no Federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html :

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA ... It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation.
...
  Note: Many states and municipalities also have enacted protections against discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. For information, please contact the EEOC District Office nearest you.

Age discrimination is illegal. You can read the law yourself ...

True. Now try to prove it in court. (a) where will you get the money or find a lawyer to take this on a contingency basis? (b) what do you rate your chances of success, absent a smoking gun memo from some C-level exec located (if they've kept the required email archives) after extensive discovery?

Age discrimination is illegal. You can read the law yourself, where it specifically states:

It shall be unlawful for an employer-

        (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age;

        (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s age; or

        (3) to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply with this chapter.

It's very clear language, and there's no legitimate reason that the companies who are doing this should not be in court right now about it.

Ok, it's really not that hard to find actual numbers, here is the data for sexual Harassment Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1997 - FY 2011

That's just the char that represents number of charge receipts filed and resolved under Title VII alleging sexual harassment discrimination.

(The data are compiled by the Office of Research, Information and Planning from data compiled from EEOC's Charge Data System and, from FY 2004 forward, EEOC's Integrated Mission System).

The percentages are given for males out of total of 100%. Average claims by men are about 13-14%, the rest are harassment cases filed by women.

Thus immediately this shows that women file about 950% more claims than men do. Thus it costs more money just to handle sexual harassment cases for women employees.

Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 as per http://www.autismpolicyblog.com/2011/03/americans-with-disabilities-act-new.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADA_Amendments_Act_of_2008

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-7-11a.cfm "Comfort Suites To Pay $132,500 For Disability Discrimination Against Clerk With Autism"

This one is very important, look at page two "Examples Illustrating Definition of Disability" one of the examples used to define a disability was specifically to list autism, by name. Its kind of hard to wiggle out of "autism isn't a disability" when its specifically listed by name in regulation as an example of a legally protected disability.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/regulations/upload/adaaa-summary.pdf

I mean when the EEOC uses your diagnosis as an example of what the law covers, its kind of hard to claim that example doesn't fit under the definition. Now my ingrown toenail was not listed by name, so I would have a fight in court to prove its a disability by definition, unlike your diagnosis.

Obviously your best bet is as per your own comment:

Accordingly, at the advice of my attorney

Yeah that'll probably work a hell of a lot better than the advice of some idiot on /. who none the less knows some people with autism and also knows how to use google really well. However if you haven't talked to your lawyer since 2008 when they passed the law, or 2011 when the EEOC released their new regulations specifically naming autism, maybe its time to talk again, or at least think about it?

Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 as per http://www.autismpolicyblog.com/2011/03/americans-with-disabilities-act-new.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADA_Amendments_Act_of_2008

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-7-11a.cfm "Comfort Suites To Pay $132,500 For Disability Discrimination Against Clerk With Autism"

This one is very important, look at page two "Examples Illustrating Definition of Disability" one of the examples used to define a disability was specifically to list autism, by name. Its kind of hard to wiggle out of "autism isn't a disability" when its specifically listed by name in regulation as an example of a legally protected disability.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/regulations/upload/adaaa-summary.pdf

I mean when the EEOC uses your diagnosis as an example of what the law covers, its kind of hard to claim that example doesn't fit under the definition. Now my ingrown toenail was not listed by name, so I would have a fight in court to prove its a disability by definition, unlike your diagnosis.

Obviously your best bet is as per your own comment:

Accordingly, at the advice of my attorney

Yeah that'll probably work a hell of a lot better than the advice of some idiot on /. who none the less knows some people with autism and also knows how to use google really well. However if you haven't talked to your lawyer since 2008 when they passed the law, or 2011 when the EEOC released their new regulations specifically naming autism, maybe its time to talk again, or at least think about it?

I am a man, but if that invalidates my opinion I think I've proven my point. I certainly do think we are closer to eggshells than to hostile generally, though you and I might differ on the definition of hostile. There are more murders in the US than claims filed for sexual harassment.

This is called "employment discrimination" and it is against Federal Law: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

IANAL, but be careful of what you post about your hiring practices. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Our solution to all our hiring, has been to focus on finding youth...

In other words, assuming that you're in the US, you've been focusing on illegal age discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm

Already illegal. And it wasn't something that was just barely passed either, there was only one vote against.

Actually, what they're saying is that Facebook and other major software development firms engage in illegal age discrimination, but that rather than complain about it or get the EEOC or other agencies to do something about it, we should just roll over and accept it.

If you read it closely, it doesn't actively do anything. It only pertains to the FCC and doesn't tell the FCC to do anything. It just says this particular piece of legislation doesn't forbid a rule from being adopted. The FCC isn't even prevented from making a rule that passwords must be shared.

And that's assuming the FCC any regulatory authority at all with regards to an employer mandating a password. It would seem that these guys should be given the mandate to protect employees: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm

If you live in the United States, then that employer violated Federal Law, in particular, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. This was a Title VII amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm

You should turn them in and watch them burn.

"They started the interview by informing me that I would be "the oldest person in the group" (I was 39 at the time)."

Too bad you weren't over 40, you could have then said: "Of course I'm sure that won't be held against me due to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act..."

When you are hiring, you never should mention anything regarding age, marriage status, race, veteran status, etc.

A few observations:

The only animal life presented in the few photos returned from a Google image search for TSA employee "Theldala Magee" is captioned "Slug on Cabbage."

Is being a rapist a disability? Will the EEOC protect Ms. Magee's right to rape airline passengers as it protects the rights of alcoholic commercial truck drivers to drive trucks?

Forgot to link to the actual government citation for this for you non-US-ians
Here's the releveant words highlighted in this ephimeral google search

The US has a law on the subject, forbidding insurers to take your genetic information into account:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/gina.cfm

There are 10 Federal holidays, of which most employers will observe at least 6. Depends on your industry and employer.
-- The United States has no law mandating minimum paid vacation hours or holidays. We are one of only a handful of nations in the world that don't.
FMLA. 6 weeks unpaid leave, guaranteed.
-- Most other countries mandate paid maternity and sick leave. Almost no Americans have it, except for the top 5% or so. (Charging vacation hours for sick time doesn't count!)
In theory yes, in practice not so much. Wrongful termination suits are exceptionally easy to file.
-- At-will states (most of them) have a very high rejection rate for wrongful termination suits. At-will = "I can fire you for anything or for no reason at all", barring Title VII and other obvious exceptions.
http://eeoc.gov/ [eeoc.gov] No, they can't.
-- You've never heard of affirmative action and quota systems?
Hyperbole much?
-- Well, the legal protections for employees present in the U.S. are not comparable with the other first-world countries. I'd say it's closer to second-world, excluding China maybe.

To the epsilon-minus that modded me troll: The EEOC on the matter. If you're a government civil-service employee, you're generally safe, but no such rule applies to private workplaces.

The EEOC on the matter. If you're a government civil-service employee, you're generally safe, but no such rule applies to private workplaces.

No holiday time,

-There are 10 Federal holidays, of which most employers will observe at least 6. Depends on your industry and employer.

no sick leave, no maternity leave,

-FMLA. 6 weeks unpaid leave, guaranteed. (though shitty employers can skirt this). Sick time varies from employer to employer.

no restrictions on hours worked, no mandated breaks,

-Varies from state to state. Ostensibly the Federal government only regulates interstate commerce.

few health and safety regulations,

-http://osha.gov/

can be fired without notice or reason,

-In theory yes, in practice not so much. Wrongful termination suits are exceptionally easy to file.

can legally discriminate, etc.

-http://eeoc.gov/ No, they can't.

It is like working in the third world.

Hyperbole much? There are lots of things wrong with employment in the US, but I'm gonna wander out on a limb and say that since you're not engaging in actual serfdom or subsistence farming, you're just a tad bit better off.

No, there aren't federal laws mandating the protections you outline, but it's unfair to assume that since the protection doesn't exist, the benefit doesn't exist anywhere. Most of us that work full time have sick time, vacation time, health care, and are covered by some form of overtime law or comp time policy.

Affirmative action is nothing more than basic racism, choosing someone because of their race or gender in order to fulfill a bullshit dream of "increasing diversity".

Typical misrepresentation of affirmative action by an actual bigot.
Take a look at what affirmative action in the USA actually means:

"take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin"
Executive Order 10925 - Establishing The President's Committee On Equal Employment Opportunity
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eo-10925.html

"to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency"
Executive Order 11246--Equal employment opportunity
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html

Posted AC because I don't feel like taking the karma hit for speaking truth to off-topic stupidity.

You're missing the point. If no accomodation is possible, like with driving a car, that doesn't stop those without handicaps from doing so. You're perfectly free to deny a man in a wheelchair a job as a construction worker.

You're kidding, right? You are *not* perfectly free to deny a man in a wheelchair, it is in fact against federal law! http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/ada18.html And the point wasn't that having a touchscreen was a violation, the point is that having ONLY a touchscreen is a violation - not to mention cutting off an appreciable percentage of a banks potential cleintele.

I can only believe you are joking, as the alternative is unthinkable.

IANAL, but I don't believe that tax status (i.e., mortgage deduction) is a protected class. Also, the EEOC q-and-a page doesn't list sexual orientation as being a class that is protectedby federal law, although some states and localities offer such protection. (I'd be surprised if Californica weren't one of these states.)

Whatever, I salute Google for having the cojones to make this move. Besides, it should be entertaining just for all the heat and light that will be generated. I'd love it if Facebook were to follow suit.

Age discrimination in the workplace is discrimination just like race or gender.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html

It's the farce of "at-will" employment. You're not really free when expressing your political opinions outside of work could cause you to lose your job.

So what do you purpose to replace "at-will" employment?

Maybe we could replace "at-will" employment with "Equal Employment Opportunity" which could prohibit employment discrimination based on anything except how you do your work? The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 puts it quote nicely: "personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance".

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html is a good start, but more and more people feel that like the Ninth Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights the enumeration of EEOC protections for certain employee attributes and conduct which does not adversely affect employee performance should not be allowed to deny or disparage EEOC protection for other employee attributes or conduct which do not adversely affect employee performance.

So if you found out one of your employees was a member of the KKK, you'd keep him on the payroll?

If he only excercises his KKK conduct outside the workplace, then he shouldn't be able to be fired for it. The military's "don't ask don't tell" experience should have made it clear that some people really can keep their personal attitudes separate from their work place and some.

Equal opportunity is not "you must hire x percentage of blacks", equal opportunity is "you may not refuse employment on the basis an employee is black". It's a very big difference.

I'm sure you're right but look at this bit from the EEOC manual on racial discrimination:

EXAMPLE 4
RACIAL STEREOTYPING OR BIAS

Charles, an African American, files a charge alleging that the employer, a retailer, used an interview to discriminate against him in favor of a less experienced White applicant. During the EEOC investigator’s discussion with the hiring manager, she notices that the hiring manager’s statements are peppered with comments such as “we were looking for a clean cut image,” and “this is a sophisticated upscale location . . . I have to make sure the people I hire have, you know, the ‘soft-skills’ we need.” Knowing that these statements could be reflective of racial stereotyping and bias,(39) the investigator evaluates the employer’s decisionmaking very carefully. The investigator interviews Charles’s most recent employer, who tells the investigator that “customers just loved working with Charles . . . he was one of our most effective and motivated employees.” The investigator also interviews the person hired and finds no basis for believing her “soft skills,” or her “image,” were any better than Charles’s. In addition, the investigator notices that, like the person hired over Charles, the rest of the staff also is White even though the qualified labor market is significantly more diverse. The investigator concludes that the employer rejected Charles based on racial stereotyping or bias.

The racial makeup of employees compared to the racial makeup of the applicant pool is definitely a factor, though not the only factor. In other words, if you don't have x percentage of blacks, that's a strike against you and adds weight to any claim of discrimination against blacks.

IANAL, but I think under US law (as opposed to state or municipal laws), the "reasonable person" rule generally applies (but in the context of the particular workplace and considering the perspective of the accuser). See Guidance : C. Determining Whether a Work Environment Is "Hostile" (actually, if you're a manager, reading the whole thing isn't a bad idea if you've not been marinated in corporate training courses about "sexual harassment" recently!)

I doubt that the "rumors of pool table incident at prior employer" would qualify since a reasonable person with no knowledge of the rumor mills at the accuser's past jobs would have any reason to expect that a mere invitation to play pool would be perceived in any way except what it was (an offer to play pool).

The hispanic numbers of 15% are highly concentrated in a small number of states. For example, California is 76.6% white... but that breaks down to 37% hispanic and 39% non-hispanic.

Estimates are for a Hispanic majority in California and Texas in the near future.

This is a problem when they lose interest in fairness in proportion to their power.

There are small manufacturing, cleaning, and food making companies in Texas which have already had some issues in this area.

Oh.. and then there's this..

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/archive/8-12-09.html

SHELBY, N.C. - A nationwide freight management company violated federal law by refusing to hire non-Hispanics, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today. ...October 1, 2002, through June 30, 2004, Fort Smith, Ark.-based Propak Logistics, Inc. engaged in unlawful employment practices by refusing to hire an entire class of people for non-management positions at its Shelby, N.C., facility because of their non-Hispanic national origin. The complaint said that the company hired predominantly Latinos to the exclusion of equally or more qualified non-Latinos...

Discrimination by whites is wrong. A large number of whites agree with that position. So is discrimination by everyone else. Some other minorities don't seem to agree with that half of the equation.

But... as long as we are a nation of laws, it will fix itself eventually.

My point was, it's been a long sucky multi-decade period for white males ("males" in general but white males benchmark to their dads and it's a pretty hopeless comparison). Once we hit parity, at least the pain will stop.

If there's a genuine medical need for special equipment like a larger monitor then of course it's good practice to provide that where it's economically viable to do so.

"Good practice" and "economic viability" don't enter into the equation. It's the law. As it should be. You can't simply say "Well that costs money, so no." That's unlawful discrimination. Now not everything can or needs to be accommodated, but easily rectifiable things must. Even if you think that it's "too expensive," it's the employer's responsibility to search out equally effective, less costly options, and "must also consider whether funding for an accommodation is available from an outside source, such as a vocational rehabilitation agency, and if the cost of providing the accommodation can be offset by state or federal tax credits or deductions. You must also give the applicant or employee with a disability the opportunity to provide the accommodation or pay for the portion of the accommodation that constitutes an undue hardship."

But that's after they've sought medical advice and can support a need for special treatement. The reason you need to worry about other staff asking 'Why does Bill get a freaki'n big screen TV?!' is because you don't have a good explanation for it. That should tell you evrything about the situation.

You do have a good explanation for it: "Bill can't see."

Honestly, if you're worrying more about some pathetic gossiper versus your responsibilities under the law, and a civil society, you have more problems than having to make a CostCo run.

The Chinese and Europeans are the folks I move to the top of the interview list.

This gets modded interesting? I guess because there's no "-1, Illegal" mod.

Still, I appreciate your honesty.

There is a LOT of stuff that prospective employers can't ask you (race, sex, family status, disability, etc.). One of those things is asking you about social organizations you belong to (presumably because someone could derrive illegal information from this like your age, nationality, religion, etc.). Asking for your Facebook/Myspace/etc. information would almost CERTAINLY fall under this (since things like age/sex/etc. are standard categories on most social websites, and this information is supposed to be basically anonymous) and is really opening them up for a rather impolite visit from the EEOC.

I suspect that, in these hard times, it's just that no one has bothered to file a claim against them yet.

Yes. Practicing discrimination against homosexuals is unlawful, not to mention morally repugnant.

LOL WUT?

No, it's not. For employment or housing or some other Govt. related BS, but not for a private organization.

You are wrong. See this summary of discrimination laws. Quote:

"The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) [...] provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on conduct to include discrimination based on sexual orientation."

apparently the federal government's anti-discrimination laws escape you.

I am indeed unaware of any general anti-discimination law at the federal level, in the sense that anything limits firing to "work related behavior" or any other generic protection against employers' whims.

If you know of such a law, and are still checking for replies, please link to it; I've worked for years under the impression that I have not been protected in these matters.

There are certainly many protections against specific discrimination, none of which include political affiliation. The EEOC has a summary of what is illegal.

This is the fourth link I've placed, all consistent, against zero references contradicting it. Please, if you have better information on the matter, let me know the source. My impression continues to be that most workers simply don't know the narrow limits of their private employment rights, but I'd honestly love to find I'm wrong and that I have more rights than I thought.

"I left my basement last century, you insensitive youngling cod."

So did I, you insensitive basement leaving last century oldling clod! But I still can join up as a student to any college and get a student ID to apply for a discount. I was in my 30s when I last got my student discount from Microsoft, as it is never too late to go back to college. Some vendors don't ask for age, as it is age discrimination and can even cut you last century basement leaving oldlings a student discount.

Would it be discrimination against the males if my corporation only called the females?

Of course.

As far as I am aware I have not yet heard any cases where this happened (besides Hooters).

You must not have looked too hard, because a few minutes with Google turns up several cases of workplace discrimination against men being prosecuted. In 2002 the EEOC filed suit against L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc. for discrimination against male job applicants. In 2004 they had a case against Jillian's. And last year they had a case against Razzoo's.

Furthermore, while not related to directly employment, court cases involving discrimination against men in favor of women include Craig v. Boren and Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan.

Would it be discrimination against the males if my corporation only called the females?

Of course.

As far as I am aware I have not yet heard any cases where this happened (besides Hooters).

You must not have looked too hard, because a few minutes with Google turns up several cases of workplace discrimination against men being prosecuted. In 2002 the EEOC filed suit against L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc. for discrimination against male job applicants. In 2004 they had a case against Jillian's. And last year they had a case against Razzoo's.

Furthermore, while not related to directly employment, court cases involving discrimination against men in favor of women include Craig v. Boren and Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan.

but you should notify the EEOC when they give you a bad reference. Usually all they should give is name, rank, and serial number, how long you worked there. If they give you a bad review they are in violation of employment law. Esp if you did nothing wrong.

Now note they can just start documenting stuff that didn't happen to try and prove you are a bad employee, they did that with me. Lost doctor's notes to make my sick days look like days I just didn't show up to work, deleted their PBX system calls I made calling in the sick day so it would not show up.

Your best bet is to document everything they say to so, maybe get it voice recorded on a tape player or voice recorder system. Then present it to the EEOC as evidence they are trying to blackmail you. You might have a case against your former employer if they give a bad review.

Some companies don't care if an employer gives a bad review, they know that sometimes employers give bad reviews because they don't want their ex-employee working for their competition. But if all gets worse you can always work as a contractor or start up your own business.

Me, it made me so sick that I ended up on disability because of the stress and discrimination my former employers had against me. But after 180 days ran out I no longer had the right to sue after the job was over. I was sick those 180 days and didn't know any better.

Making a judgment on who to hire/promote/etc based on ethnicity is illegal in the United States, but an employer asking employees to voluntarily provide this information is legal, and in some cases necessary. Companies which win government contracts are required by law to file demographics data yearly. See http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-12-06.html the EEO-1 requires companies with $50,000 in federal contracts and 50 employees to report to the government ethnicity, race and gender information on its employees.

The 1st amendment has jack shit to do with this; the 1st amendment handles the government discriminating based on religion.

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may however have something to do with this...or maybe not. It's not like that Title VII has anything to do with religion...

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

Take a look at that, religious discrimination of any kind, under that law is illegal. If you need to pray to Mecca during certain parts of the work day you are allowed to (of course, the employer is also allowed to not pay you during these times), if you need to wear a small cross around your neck or do a dance every day at 2:02 pm those are all fine so long as it doesn't cost your employer anything extra. Of course, this doesn't give you free reign to do whatever religious things you'd like at the workplace; if you have to sacrifice a goat each day at 3:00 pm, you can't do that at work because it would make a huge mess (and cost the employer significant money in clean-up and time lost). If your religion tells you you have to smack women around whenever you see them then you can't do that either, because it conflict with laws against physical violence and work place harassment. If someone at your work wasn't allowed to pray at work because it would be disruptive to the workplace or foist their religious views on others then the company had every right to block them; but if all they wanted to do was quiet prayer that didn't disrupt the workplace, then that is fine.

As for the lawsuit, this one portion of the law basically makes sure that this guy wins : "Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment."

IANAL, but it sounds to me like it would be in violation of this somehow...

Yeah, way to see the big picture.

Say someone is a die-hard Neo-Nazi. Like a Wotanist or some religion like that. They wear a swastika as part of their religion and they heil hitler and all that. So you hire this guy to work your front desk. He pulls the swastika out. The customers are greatly offended. But you cannot fire him.

Someone can make a religion out of anything. I could start a religion of telling my boss that I want to do not at all tasteful things to his wife. So I tell him that. Apparently he's not allowed to fire me, even if it does make him rather uncomfortable.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/backlash-employee.html:

"Refusing to hire someone because customers or co-workers may be "uncomfortable" with that person's religion or national origin is just as illegal as refusing to hire that person because of religion or national origin in the first place. Similarly, an employer may not fire someone because of religion and/or national origin. This prohibition applies to other employment decisions as well, including promotion, transfers, work assignments and wages."

Here's the EEOC's official position-

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359505

A. Prohibited Conduct

Religious harassment in violation of Title VII occurs when employees are: (1) required or coerced to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition of employment (this type of âoequid pro quoâ harassment may also give rise to a disparate treatment or denial of accommodation claim in some circumstances),[71] or (2) subjected to unwelcome statements or conduct that is based on religion and is so severe or pervasive that the individual being harassed reasonably finds the work environment to be hostile or abusive, and there is a basis for holding the employer liable.[72]
1. Religious Coercion That Constitutes a Tangible Employment Action

That's less than 2 minutes googling. But somehow I still think hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent figuring that out...

When has prior law ever mattered to the Church of Scientology?