You must sign in to take advantage of that feature. Enter your user name and password below. No user ID yet? Get one for free.


Forgot your password?

A blog about Politics.
About siouxcityranch


Gender:
male
Date of Birth:
October 31, 1953
Member Since:
March 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
November 26, 2009
Profile Views:
3324
Blog Views:
64779
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
The White House's unprecedented use of 'unprecedented'
Oprah betrayed
First Lady Michelle Obama Hates Oprah Winfrey. So Much For That Sense Of Entitlement
MICHELLE OBAMA HATES OPRAH
White House: Obama Afghan decision 'within days'
New Map Bolsters Case for Ancient Ocean on Mars
Obama could lock in Afghanistan decision Monday
Will Minorities Get Enough Out of the Economic Stimulus?
Michelle Stabs Oprah In The Back !
Palin limits crowd interaction at NC's Fort Bragg
Archives
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
December 08
January 09
February 09
March 09
April 09
May 09
June 09
July 09
August 09
September 09
October 09
November 09

 

 
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


siouxcityranch - > -> Fla. man says Home Depot fired him over God and flag button
Fla. man says Home Depot fired him over God and flag button

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. – A former cashier for The Home Depot who has been wearing a "One nation under God" button on his work apron for more than a year has been fired, he says because of the religious reference. The company claims that expressing such personal beliefs is simply not allowed.

"I've worn it for well over a year and I support my country and God," Trevor Keezor said Tuesday. "I was just doing what I think every American should do, just love my country."

The American flag button Keezer wore in the Florida store since March 2008 says "One nation under God, indivisible."

Earlier this month, he began bringing a Bible to read during his lunch break at the store in the rural town of Okeechobee, about 140 miles north of Miami. That's when he says The Home Depot management told him he would have to remove the button.

Keezer refused, and he was fired on Oct. 23, he said.

"It feels kind of like a punishment, like I was punished for just loving my country," Keezer said.

A Home Depot spokesman said Keezer was fired because he violated the company's dress code.

"This associate chose to wear a button that expressed his religious beliefs. The issue is not whether or not we agree with the message on the button," Craig Fishel said. "That's not our place to say, which is exactly why we have a blanket policy, which is long-standing and well-communicated to our associates, that only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons."

Fishel said Keezer was offered a company-approved pin that said, "United We Stand," but he declined.

Keezer's lawyer, Kara Skorupa, said she planned to sue the Atlanta-based company.

"There are federal and state laws that protect against religious discrimination," Skorupa said. "It's not like he was out in the aisles preaching to people."

Keezer said he was working at the store to earn money for college, and wore the button to support his country and his 27-year-old brother, who is in the National Guard and is set to report in December for a second tour of duty in Iraq.

Skorupa noted the slogan on Keezer's pin is straight from the Pledge of Allegiance.

"These mottos and sayings that involve God, that's part of our country and historical fabric," Skorupa said. "In God we trust is on our money."

Michael Masinter, a civil rights and employment law professor at NOVA Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, said any lawsuit over religious discrimination might be a tough one to win.

"Because it's a private business, not one that's owned and operated by the government, it doesn't have to operate under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment," Masinter said.

"But we're not talking about religious displays here," he said. "This sounds more like a political message ... Wearing a button of that sort would not easily be described as a traditional form of religious expression like wearing a cross or wearing a yarmulke."

 

Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by siouxcityranch on Saturday, October 31, 2009 at 08:11 AM
Report a Violation
Viewed 125 times
23 comments from 12 users

1

posted by catpaw on Oct 31, 2009 at 09:22 AM

I'd think the issue would revolve around the company's personnel policy. Deciding to enforce it after allowing the discrepency for a year is certainly a mixed message.

Once upon a time, I worked for a company with a similar policy. I wore a minature combat badge near Vets Day and Memorial Day without objection. Others wore Christmas tree or angel pins during the holiday season without objection. In all cases, the pins were symbols without anything written.

posted by NancyII on Oct 31, 2009 at 09:33 AM

Here I go again speaking to the rights of a company to set their own guidelines.  Why is it so hard for people who go to work for a company to abide by the company rules?

I agree that it was wrong for them to allow it for so long then enforce it but it happens all the time.  People at Target and the dreaded WM have dress codes and yet people push the limit all the time at WM but not Target.  Why is that?

When people go to work they need to READ THE RULES and then go by them..  You're not at work to make a fashion statement or a political/religious statement, you're there to WORK.

The problem starts when you allow one person to wear their pins or buttons supporting their stance on anything, you HAVE to let ALL do it.  And you won't like all of them, guaranteed.

posted by savvydude on Oct 31, 2009 at 09:35 AM

The guy who owns Home Depot, Arthur Blank, also owns the Atlanta Falcons.  He is one of those invisible far-left billionaires who quietly supports every radical cause that emerges.  This doesn't surprise at all - go to Lowe's instead.

posted by AudreyB on Oct 31, 2009 at 09:44 AM

Nancy's post said it all.

If you don't like the bosses dress code, don't let the door hit you in the fanny on your way out.

posted by honorerdieu on Oct 31, 2009 at 09:58 AM

 

Yep.  Nancy's post said it.  Once they walk through the company door to work, you are part of their organization and have to abide by their policies and rules. 

People are free to do whatever they want outside of work, like wearing that pin to a church on Sundays.  I wonder if this guy does that?

 

posted by honorerdieu on Oct 31, 2009 at 10:08 AM

The guy who owns Home Depot, Arthur Blank, also owns the Atlanta Falcons.  He is one of those invisible far-left billionaires who quietly supports every radical cause that emerges.  This doesn't surprise at all - go to Lowe's instead.

 

What does this have to do with the former Home Depot cashier not abiding by the rules?

 

posted by ALICEN on Oct 31, 2009 at 10:28 AM

sioux:  Reading the comments started my thinking about this:  what if I worked with a guy who wanted to wear a button that said Allah Akbar! on his apron?  I for one would find that extremely offensive, and so might customers.  So I guess that even though I agree with the employee in this case for personal reasons, I can't agree with him when looking at the "big picture." 

It also started making me wonder, though, if Muslim women, if any, who work for H.D. are allowed to wear their customary clothing only, or must they use the H.D. apron?  Or are they allowed both?  The questions can get pretty sticky.  What about Amish people?  Would they be required to wear only the H.D. "uniform"?  Could ladies wear their head-dresses?  I guess I'm glad I'm not a judge. 

Being a lawyer would be okay, though -- the lawsuits would never end.

 

posted by ALICEN on Oct 31, 2009 at 10:29 AM

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SIOUX!!!

AND MANY MORRRRRRRRE!

posted by siouxcityranch on Oct 31, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Hellooo...did you people not read this part

Keezer said he was working at the store to earn money for college, and wore the button to support his country and his 27-year-old brother, who is in the National Guard and is set to report in December for a second tour of duty in Iraq.

sorry cant agree not when a reason like this is given..lets think back to WWII if everyone kept silent and didnt get involved how would that war have turned out...they supported our troops from every avenue available and were proud of it..wearing a pin for a year to show support..come on..doesnt something smell fishy...its discrimination PEOPLE..they had it out for this guy and this was their only loophole..I hope he sues their asses off..

i think most of the american people have turned into a bunch of non supportive wussys..no enthusiasum until something like 911 happens then its just a flash in the pan...after a couple months people forget about it  ..its not real unless it happens to you or your family and friends so why worry about it..just change the channel

posted by siouxcityranch on Oct 31, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Thanks Alicen..cleaning up for the feed tonight..gotta get the old trailer decked out for a hay ride..everytime some one calls to RSVP  they want to bring a friend with a kid or two along..hope you have a good one too

posted by ALICEN on Oct 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM

sioux:  I personally love what this guy is doing, and that he is standing up for his (my) country, and for his brother, who has put himself in harm's way for the likes of me.  I'm just saying that if it's okay for him to wear his button, then the Muslim buttons will come out, too, and while I might personally like the first, I'm not okay with the other. 

Personally, I hope he wins his lawsuit, but I don't hold out much hope for him.  It is funny, though, that he wore it for -- what? -- a year before they finally decided they didn't like it?  Odd.

 

posted by sagefever on Oct 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Happy Birthday SCR!


posted by AudreyB on Oct 31, 2009 at 11:08 AM

You share a birthday with Jason's daughter.  Happy Birthday to you both!!

posted by ALICEN on Oct 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM

A hayride, sioux?  I haven't been on a hayride for, ummmm, a number of years.  That sounds like fun!  Have a good time, all of you!

posted by NancyII on Oct 31, 2009 at 11:18 AM

There was a Muslim woman working at WM when I did.  She wore the company required khaki only in a skirt.  She also wore her head covered.  WM wasn't sticking to their own rules back then and were pretty lax. 

The POINT is, as I mentioned earlier and Alicen also brought up is where do you draw the line?  What are rules for?  Rules like that protect everyone.  Would you object to a cashier wearing a 'I worship satan" button?" 

You can't allow one person to wear whatever they choose without opening the door to all.

Nothing to do with pins but if I owned a business no one with facial piercings would be allowed to wear the jewelry on the job.  Especially if I was in the food business.  No one with sleeves or exccessive visable tats all over the place would be hired either.  I suppose that would open a whole new can of worms but, so be it.

The solution is simple.  Don't apply for a job knowing the rules and then try to change them.

posted by AudreyB on Oct 31, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Nancy

Waaaay back when, when I was doing the books for the PBV School District cafeteria, a Hindu lady called one day and asked to speak to the Director of food services.

She had a request.

She wanted the school cooks to prepare her children's food separately (on a clean part of the griddle and using separate pans) from all of the rest of the food cooked that day.  As she explained it, her husband blessed all  the food that her family ate that day.  In fact, neither she nor the children could eat anything that he hadn't blessed.  So it was important that her children's food didn't touch unclean food prepared for the rest of the student body.

The Director explained to her that there were 600 children attending that school.  70% of them ate in the cafeteria.  The cafeteria had a staff of 5.  It would've been impossible for them to cook meals for 420 children who ate every day if each child's parents requested special attention.

She added that the best option was for mom to send a sack lunch with her kids. 

It's best not to open a can of worms.

 

posted by NancyII on Oct 31, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Exactly Audrey.  When I was a kid we had hot lunches that included hominy, which I detested, and various veggies that I thought were poison.  I can't imagine my Mom telling the school to cook something different for me that day.  I just took a lunch when the food was something I wouldn't eat.  (They made us eat the sutff if we had it on our plate)

I had a cousin who wouldn't drink "white" milk and was allowed to have chocolate milk.  Didn't seem fair to me then and it still doesn't.  I'd have like to have some of that chocolate milk myself.  :-)

posted by Shwaine on Oct 31, 2009 at 01:00 PM

Company dress code is company dress code. I'm sure the Hot Dog on a Stick workers don't like the company uniform, but that's all part of the job. As long as the dress code is evenly enforced, it's just one of those things you have to "deal with" to have a job at that company. If you don't like it, either work to change the dress code or work somewhere else. You don't just flaunt the dress code and then go to the media when you get fired over it. That's just not how it works.

Edit for new thought: What he could have done is petition the store owner or even the corporate office to have certain "Support our Troop" style buttons (flags, yellow ribbons, etc) allowed under the dress code. That would have been the right way to go about it and he could have even started a nation-wide phenomena of HD employees wearing "Support our Troop" buttons. Instead, he flaunts the dress code then gets upset when he gets fired and tries to make a little media attention out of it via this lawsuit.

posted by NancyII on Oct 31, 2009 at 01:30 PM

When I worked at Antons at the airport we had to wear black pants, white tuxedo shirts and a black bow tie.  The company provided us with black pilots jackets gold braid and all.  I hated that jacekt and can you imagine bartending in one?  Well we did.  I looked like humpty dumpty but my co-bartender was tall and slim and looked like a million bucks. 

They're called UNIFORMS for a reason.  It makes the employees stand out from the customers.

 

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Oct 31, 2009 at 02:33 PM

Home Depot is known for strictness when it comes to their employee policies.  My late cousin Tom worked for Home Depot for a number of years but was fired when another employee complained that he was "sexually harrassing" another employee.  Tom merely told the girl that the way she was wearing her hair made her look cute.  His comment was completely innocent, and even the girl agreed that she didn't think it was harrasment.  She was not offended in the slightest, and didn't take his comment as anything but someone being nice.  However, because Home Depot has a 100% zero tolerance policy, all it took was the complaint from someone else.

posted by VirgilAnderson on Oct 31, 2009 at 02:52 PM

 

I like cute hair ...

--virgil

posted by rwestfall on Oct 31, 2009 at 03:23 PM

Just curious what about this story? This has to do with apparel. Or is it discrimination? Is it ok for one group but not another?

http://www.foxnews.com/stor...

posted by Shwaine on Oct 31, 2009 at 06:22 PM

rwestfall, in a medical environment, a head scarf could be a health hazard. So can a tie (have you looked at the studies done on cultures taken from the ties of medical workers? uggg...). The story does not mention if all such items are banned at that medical practice or if health hazards was the reason behind the "no hats" policy. So I cannot make a judgement on that situation without a more complete source of information than Fox News.

1

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

Advertisement