For years conservative political pundits have lambasted journalism as a secular think tank, hellbent on voiding society of its religious values. And if you ask former Indianapolis Star editorial employees Lisa Coffey and James Patterson, they just might agree.

The veteran employees of the Gannett-owned newspaper filed a complaint June 13 against Gannett and the Star after the newspaper fired Patterson, and Coffey quit after the paper transferred her to a non-writing position. Both allege discrimination based on religion.

But Coffey and Patterson aren't members of some niche cult–they're Christians. They allege that after pushing for the publication of articles that incorporated topics relevant to their religion, such as prayer and homosexuality, they were given the boot.

With Islam and Christian Fundamentalism growing, the American workforce is becoming increasingly religious. This leaves employers trying to strike a delicate balance between respecting religious beliefs and creating a nondiscriminatory environment for other employees. This is new territory in employment law, and the landscape is still mostly uncharted. Yet, there are tactics, old and new, that GCs can employ to protect their companies from lawsuits.

“The thing that we really see and that employers have to understand is that people are taking their faiths a lot more seriously these days,” says John Whitehead, constitutional attorney and founder of the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization that has consulted law firms on how to mediate religious disputes in the workplace. “Lawsuits are probably the worst [consequence], but I think nine out of 10 of these lawsuits can be avoided.”

Religious Rights

Coffey's case highlights the problems many employers face in dealing with employees' religious beliefs. In her complaint, Coffey says she lobbied to write a series of columns detailing “the public health and economic consequences of anal intercourse.” Her editors refused to publish the columns because, according to the defense's response, the “vulgar and graphic content was inappropriate for a family newspaper.” The paper further stated that Coffey's piece only reflected her “poor judgment and her interest in anal intercourse, be it homosexual or otherwise.”

Coffey alleges the editor refused to publish the columns because he disagreed with her Christian views about homosexuality and claimed it was part of a pattern of prejudice against her beliefs. She felt confirmed in her thoughts after an e-mail exchange with her editor in which he allegedly condemned her beliefs and accused her of proselytizing.

In Patterson's portion of the complaint, he alleges that the paper's environment became hostile toward his Christian views the day his new editor was instated. It was the day after the war in Iraq commenced, and Patterson had written an editorial calling for the country to pray for the troops. According to the complaint, Patterson's editor told the department that he had been “repulsed” and “offended” by the editorial because of the piece's incitement to pray. Furthermore, the editor allegedly instructed the staff that editorials with Christian overtones would not be allowed.

Patterson also alleges being passed up for an open position in his department, despite the nine years he had worked for the

paper. The defense contests that Patterson was a poor employee whose mediocre performance record speaks for itself.

Coffey and Patterson's case walks a thin line. They allege religious discrimination, but at the same time, their beliefs, which can be construed as anti-gay, could create an environment hostile to homosexual employees or content offensive to the paper's readers. To avoid such conflicts, companies should implement policies and procedures that balance the needs of all employees.

Teaching Tolerance

GCs play a central role in shaping company guidelines. To do so, they should first turn to the law.

According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must provide “reasonable accommodation” for religious beliefs and practices, unless doing so would result in “undue hardship” for the employer.

“If a religious person creates a hostile work environment, that would be an undue hardship and that is a reason for an employer to get rid of somebody, probably legally,” Whitehead says.

This is where the law provides companies with leeway. According to Robin Charlow, a law professor at Hofstra University in New York, “reasonable accommodation” doesn't mean ample effort.

“The employer does not have to go out of the way [to accommodate] in most instances,” Charlow says. “So if it's easy to do, then yes you have to do it. If it is hard to do, then no you don't have to do it.”

However, Ted Meyer, a partner at Jones Day in Houston, stresses that although an employer only has to do the minimum in an attempt to accommodate, it is important to try to address all employee concerns.

“From an overall morale and efficiency perspective, it is something that is important to address as much as other forms of discrimination and harassment,” Meyer says. “It is important to have a meaningful dialogue as opposed to ignoring it because when it does get ignored, it festers.”

In Coffey and Patterson's case, the two allege that their Christian views on homosexuality clashed with those of the paper. When a company makes a point to create a tolerant workplace, an employee's religious beliefs do not trump company policy.

“The employer could impose that tolerance rule,” Charlow says. “And if it did not comport with the religious beliefs of some employees, the employees would have to make an effort to fit the environment. It's not the other way around. Just because it is your religion doesn't mean that the employer has to accommodate it.”

Although the interpretation of the law only requires employers to make small efforts to accommodate religious practices, no company wants to create hostility in the workplace, risk losing an exemplary employee or be slapped with a lawsuit. That is why companies must spearhead training programs that educate managers on how to correctly mediate religious disputes.

“You could fold the training into the regular employee training,” Meyer says. “The content of the training has to be managed by a very high-ranking human resource person or the law department or both. [The GC] can do an annual review of the employee training.”

Whitehead takes mediation one step further. Rather than having human resources or the legal department mediate disputes, he advocates the creation of an entirely new position, one which employs someone versed in counseling and theology.

“What I've suggested is that you need someone in the workplace that can understand these people,” he says. “He can't be just your average Joe counselor unless he's had special [religious] training. This is one big thing that if the big companies could really get it clicking, they could avoid lawsuits.”