Chiefs’ Counsel’s Corner
(continued)
The Iowa Supreme Court trod a thin line when it found that Knight's decision was "driven entirely by indi-
vidual feelings and emotions regarding a specific person" and that it was not the product of discrimination
based on gender or a proxy for gender discrimination. A concurring opinion further clarified that Nelson
had failed to show that her status as a woman—as opposed to her personal relationship with Knight—was
the motivating reason for her termination. Thus, the Knight v. Nelson opinion justified an employer's deci-
sion to terminate an at-will employee due to mere personal jealousies if the can show that individualized
feelings about the individual as contrasted with their gender determined and motivated the decision.
In another incident that never was litigated, the city of Austin, Texas formally reprimanded William Manno,
the Austin Center for Events program manager, in 2017 because he "purposely avoided meetings and pri-
vate interactions with female co-workers because of issues with his marriage." He said he stopped having
lunches with women because "it was not appropriate for a married man to have lunch with a single lady."
But the investigator also concluded that Manno differentiated his mentoring of subordinate employees
based upon gender and marital status and that he decided which meetings he and a subordinate would
attend based on marital status. Thus despite Manno's personal religious beliefs, the investigation conclud-
ed he violated the city code of conduct by treating employees differently based on their gender.
The outcomes for Mr. Knight and Mr. Manno pose conflicting challenges for employers who must re-
spond to employees wishing to self-segregate from members of the opposite sex. To reconcile the chal-
lenges a somewhat awkward and difficult rule may emerge: Decisions to accommodate a person's reli-
gious beliefs by not requiring an employee to work alone with an employee of the opposite sex might not
violate Title VII when based on personal relationships and emotions, even if the emotions or religious be-
liefs exist because of gender. However, decisions to accommodate requests based on bright-line catego-
ries (i.e., all women) likely would violate Title VII.
The Take-Aways
We don't know how the district court will balance the anti-discrimination laws and the religious accommo-
dation claims in the Torres case. Torres requested to not be required to work with any woman, in any sit-
uation, ever. This is like Manno's request. Unlike Knight, Torres did not appear to confine his request to
one individual woman based upon his or his wife's personal feelings. The county is likely to argue that ac-
commodating Torres's request would have caused it to violate Title VII and exposed them to liability-an
undue hardship that overrides his right to religious accommodation.
So, what should Police Chiefs do? Tell your employees what they should do, instead of just what they
shouldn't do. Instead of merely training employees on how to avoid sexual harassment—which is un-
doubtedly critical—emphasize the need for and praise the benefits of diversity and cross-gender collabora-
tion. Also consider whether your Department has a published policy dealing with employee interactions,
and in particular a policy on fraternization between superiors and subordinates. Determine whether your
policies address individual accommodations for personal or religious beliefs. Consider how your agencies
foster cross-gender mentorships and relationships so that women and men receive equal access to devel-
opment and training opportunities.
Above all, in their words and their behaviors Chiefs must consistently and emphatically affirm the core no-
tion that people of different genders must treat each other with professionalism and respect in all situa-
tions, not just in the workplace, and that all employees bring dignity and value to the organization and the
accomplishment of its mission.
www.gachiefs.com • Page 38 • 1st Quarter Newsletter