Men Beware: Following the Billy Graham Rule Could Get You Fired. It Happened to a N.C. Sheriff.

PJ Media ^ | 08/27/2019 | Paula Bolyard

[SeekAndFind]

A former sheriff's deputy in Lee County, N.C., says he was fired from his job for following the so-called Billy Graham rule and asking to be excused from spending a significant amount of time alone with a female trainee. Late last month, Manuel Torres filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, claiming his firing was the result of religious discrimination.

Torres, who worked for the Lee County Sheriff's Office (LCSO) from 2012 until he was fired in 2017, filed a complaint on July 31 accusing Sheriff Tracy Lynn Carter of discriminating against him by terminating his employment after he requested a reasonable religious accommodation based on his Christian beliefs — namely, Torres asked that he not be forced to spend time alone with a female coworker whom he was assigned to train.

Torres is seeking "equitable and monetary relief in the form of present and future lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages for emotional distress and other injuries, and punitive and/or liquidated damages, as provided by law."

The Billy Graham rule dates back to the 1940s, when Southern Baptist evangelist Billy Graham, who was spending long stretches of time on the road away from his family, made a pact with several other men involved in ministry, called the Modesto Manifesto, vowing to "avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion," according to Graham's autobiography.

The idea behind the rule was to obey the Bible's command to "abstain from every form of evil" (sometimes translated "abstain from all appearance of evil"). Graham's desire was that no one should be able to accuse him of sexual misconduct as a result of being spotted alone with a woman.

[HighSierra5]

Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. Pretzel logic of the left.

[FewsOrange]

If part of your job is training other officers and you refuse to do that then you should be fired.

[PGR88]

Its not a “religious rule,” its a common sense bureaucratic-survival, political rule.

[Chengdu54]

Graham’s rule applies to one’s personal life. Don’t expect any employer to allow its application to job responsibilities. What’s more, risk of false accusations at work are no longer confined to opposite sex contexts.

[Unassuaged]

Amen. Such babies.

[eyeamok]

If part of your job is training other officers and you refuse to do that then you should be fired.

I strongly Disagree, in todays climate there is No Way in Hell I would be forced to be Alone with a subordinate of the opposite sex. No Female can go in to a Doctors Office or a Dentist if they are Male without a WITNESS. Far too many cases of FALSE claims of Sexual Assault and Harassment, with NO Consequences to the LIAR that made them.

[ealgeone]

In the so called “me to” era this is a wise move.

[HeadOn]

Nope. Just smart. Take it from a man who had serious rumors spread about him just from talking alone in a hallway with a receptionist.

[gaijin]

Next:

Baker shut-down cuz he was TOO willing to bake The Gay Cake..?

[Oldexpat]

Doors open and arms length away. Otherwise have a witness.

[Vigilanteman]

Exactly. There is zero need for one on one training. Small group classes are both more efficient and protect the trainer from false accusations.

The evidence shows accusations are pretty much a one-way street.

[9YearLurker]

I have a hard time seeing a Christian basis for wanting a job in the public sector, dealing with the public, then expecting an accommodation not to interact regularly with the majority sex. We would understandably not be very patient with such a request from a Muslim.

(And yeah, the whole #MeToo movement has been insane for not anticipating this response becoming more mainstream for the baseless public accusations hurled.)

[Unassuaged]

Sorry about that. Some people have trouble adapting to the modern world. If my daughter was denied advancement based on your fears, well, that would be worse. Are you sure the problem is not you?

[sport]

From what I read, it sounded like the guy was being, for one reason or another, set up.

[mpackard]

I guess your daughter would have to be mad at the thousands of women who have made it DANGEROUS to be alone with someone of the opposite sex.

[Unassuaged]

Women have other, more serious, concerns. ‘DANGEROUS’? A bit dramatic, no?

[Getready]

In todays hypersexual climate it is to say the least, risky to try and simply socially connect or even professionally connect with opposite or even same sex coworkers. DANGEROUS consequences to ones livelihood and reputation is certainly a possibility.

[Ron H.]

I was involved in management for the most of my working adult life and even though I had never heard of the this rule I still practiced it religiously. I made it a point to never meet in private with a woman in my office or anywhere else who worked for me in any capacity. If in my office I'd bring in my secretary or female assistant and if none available I'd make them accompany me into the public domain area of my business for any discussions.

I wanted no chance for misinterpretations of my intentions especially when discussing personnel problems or conducting performance reviews and I just always thought it prudent and proper to do so not realizing I was just ahead of my time. I'm glad that I had this rigid rule set for myself.

[Mr.Unique]

Funny to see what will get a cop fired.

Shot a dog? No problem.

Set up a no knock raid that goes wrong? We got your back.

Break some PC rule? Pack your kit!