Chiefs’ Counsel’s Corner
(continued)
his sergeant retaliated by "failing to respond to a call for backup in an unsafe area where he had to tase two
fighting suspects, and a gun was present on the scene." He claims the Chief Deputy "expressed his anger at the
repeated requests for religious accommodation, and that a week later he was fired without explanation. He sued
his Sheriff and two agencies to which he allegedly applied for a job following his termination, under Title VII al-
leging religious discrimination and retaliation. He is seeking over $315,000 in damages.
Lee County's Sheriff, Tracy Carter, contends that she terminated Torres for having a "toxic attitude," displaying
insubordination, and constantly complaining, not because he refused to work with a female deputy. Carter notes
that Torres always knew that his job required him to work alone with women and that Torres had previously
trained women without complaint.
The county contends that Torres's wife became jealous when he was assigned to train the female deputy and
that the wife demanded that he not allow the female to ride with him in his patrol car. The county says that
Torres told other officers he and his wife had been arguing daily about him riding with Deputy Burton. The coun-
ty claims it did its best to accommodate Torres's request to not train women alone but, due to its limited re-
sources, ultimately could not do so.
The “Billy Graham Rule”
The so-called "Billy Graham Rule" reportedly is firmly rooted in the Evangelical Christian movement. It requires
married men and women to abstain from one-on-one situations with members of the opposite sex. When strictly
-followed, the rule transcends the workplace, demanding separation in every aspect of life. Billy Graham himself
followed this rule refusing to dine alone with women and hiring private security to scope out his hotel rooms
ahead of time to ensure no woman was hiding and attempting to malign his reputation.
Many more employers are contending with similar issues. A 2019 Lean-In study reported that approximately
60% of male managers feel uncomfortable engaging in everyday job-related activities with women. This repre-
sents a 14% increase over the level reported in 2018. Senior male executives are 12 times more likely to hesi-
tate to meet with a woman than a man. This empirical evidence reinforces what many women sense in their eve-
ryday interactions with male colleagues.
Similar Situations That Have Attracted National Attention
In his case, Torres contends that his employer did not protect his religious convictions. He argues that Title VII
prohibits an employer from discriminating against or depriving an employee of opportunities because of religion
and also requires employers to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs. The county maintains that it termi-
nated Torres because of his toxic work behavior, it also argues that it could not have accommodated his reli-
gious convictions without undue hardship, thus removing it from the ambit of Title VII protections.
The case presents a broader question: What are the legal ramifications where an employee's religious convic-
tions collide with federal antidiscrimination laws? While the answer seems obvious—treat men and women
equally—little case law exists on this point.
In a somewhat analogous case in Iowa, the Iowa Supreme Court found there was no unlawful sex discrimination
after Dentist James Knight fired Melissa Nelson from his dental office. Knight's wife was concerned about what
she suspected was a budding sexual relationship between her husband and his dental assistant. She demanded
he fire Nelson. Dr. Knight admitted that Nelson was the best assistant he ever had and that he feared he would
have an affair with her if he did not terminate her. Legally, Knight grounded his decision on his religious convic-
tion.
www.gachiefs.com • Page 37 • 1st Quarter Newsletter