I hope so. Sounds like the guy only took the job because his record cost him a lot of other prospects. Nobody needs their nose rubbed like this.

@chalupacabre In general, it's illegal to fire someone based on turning down religious invitations. I don't know if there are any particulars though. I guess it also depends on the judge's interpretation. It should definitely get him some money though. How much I don't know.

I guess if the employer can provide proof that he let's employees know before he hires them that it's mandatory then he might have a case, but even if he did, it's still illegal to fire someone for that.

All signs look like the employee will win.

@icolan I read something where if you're also taking care of someone and you are ordered to take them to a church then you have to do it too. Like if you work for a company and a part of the job is to escort children somewhere or something like that. But yeah I should have left that out as I already said it would still be illegal.

This guy was a painter. Seems pretty straight forward, so I'm not sure how letting him paint could have reflected poorly on the company, unless their study sessions inflated the time that it took to complete a job and this guy wanting to work meant that it wouldn't take as long to finish as the company billed it.

Seems like so much of the time, the initial case will make the news, but not the conclusion. Hope this one's different.

He's going to win: it's a violation of several (mostly state) laws.

That the employer paid him for his activity doesn't excuse it. As a counterexample, would you argue that having employee's attend:

a political rally for a candidate they oppose
participating in a demonstration for a cause they oppose

is also acceptable just because the employee was paid for their time? I don't believe so.

But it is "training" you claim. The employee can easily demonstrate that a religious class will not make him a better tradesperson. I doubt that the company's justification that religious class makes one a tradesperson would stand much legal scrutiny.

@RPardoe Lol, time will tell, but thanks for the arm chair verdict. =D. I wouldnt argue anything, worth consideration is 'study' does not equate to 'forced worship' and an employer can (at least in my state) demand an awful lot, as long as they pay you for it.

@dellik Indeed...and aren't we all arm chair lawyers here? As you said, time will tell.

@RPardoe I apologize, the arm chair verdict comment was directed at the gentleman directly above you,The guy making the (incredibly) over optimistic statement 'he will win'
I just woke up

[ffrf.org]

"I was invited to attend church/bible study by my superior. Is this legal?

It is illegal for an employer to coerce an employee into attending religious events or practicing a religion. Thus, context is key in deciding whether an employer has crossed the line in inviting an employee to attend church. The invitation is problematic if done in a way that suggests that there will be job-related benefits or consequences based on the employee's response."

I guess if the employer can provide proof that he let's employees know before he hires them that it's mandatory then he might have a case, but even if he did, it's still illegal to force someone to attend and then fire someone for not attending.

All signs look like the employee will win.

But of course it's just all our "guessing". It probably also depends on the judge's interpretation.

@icolan Yeah, I said it wouldn't even matter as it's illegal anyway lol. I should have just left that out. I doubt the guy gets the full $800K though, but it's going to be a nice payout.

@icolan I guarantee it will hinge on two facts. one thats its 'bible study' not worship, and 2 that he is paid for it, if the owner considers this study to be a part of the job, that will most likely be determined to be his right.

I reiterate I don't agree with it, but thats how I see it panning out.

remember, courts still order attendance withen A.A, and that is a highly religious institution

@icolan You can keep flapping your mouth all day long, as has already been stated, Time will tell.

@icolan rude would be repetiously tagging someone. I didnt make guarantees I stated my opinion, so now you are 2 for two, rude, and lacking reading comprehension skills. in short, gtfoh.