Attorney: Fired Allstate Employee's Trial Carries Implications for Religious Freedom

Agape Press ^ | July 19, 2005 | Jim Brown

[TChris]

I was thinking they could fire you for going out and eating chinese food because they HATE it or something equally as ludicrous as your examples!

And why not? Although Allstate is a large corporation, hiring and firing decisions are entirely private matters. The principle is exactly the same as if it were only a three-employee small business.

The question boils down to this: Does an employer have the right to hire and fire whom he chooses? If the answer is "Yes", then the employer's reasons for those choices are entirely immaterial. If the answer is "No", then the only remaining issue is just how far the government chooses to intrude into those decisions. The intrusions will always grow, as everything else does under government control.

The Constitution does not give the government the authority to regulate private arrangements such as employment. Doing so, even in the name of the most noble of ideals, is simply unconstitutionalm, IMO. Our government was never intended to regulate everything, making sure everyone is nice to each other. Specifially, unless an employer is practicing slavery, meaning an employee can't leave, then I don't see any standing for a complaint. If Allstate is an anti-Christian, pro-homosexual corporation, then perhaps remaining Christian employees should begin to find other jobs.

[GOP_1900AD]

A key concept is good faith dealing. If I deal in good faith with my customers, suppliers and employees (themselves, de facto suppliers) then I can expect to ideally be unencumbered by excessive regulations. Have levels of regulation gone overboard? Definitely! But, should I, as argued by newgeezer, as an employer, have the "freedom" to use my hiring and firing authority to craft, in microcosm, a liberal utopia that is not even a real microcosm of the lion's share of society? It would seem that doing so violates the notion of good faith, therefore inviting targetted interference by political pressure groups, government or both. Allstate deserve to be hammered, irrespective of the letter of the law, due to their bad faith dealing in this case.

[GOP_1900AD]

Many may recognize my line of thought from contract law ...

[MortMan]

Besides, one obvious way to mitigate the risk would be to take responsibility for one's own retirement benefits, rather than putting oneself at the mercy of one's employer.

To inject a little reason here, the prohibition on demographic firing of older workers to avoid the payment of retirement benefits can be viewed as an issue of bad-faith bargaining on the contract (for the pension) drawn between the company and the individual. When there is a pattern of such behavior on the company's part, it indicates they have been making the commitment (in writing) for a pension for the workers without the intention to fulfill their commitments.

If an individual older worker is fired or layed off, there is not necessarily pattern-based evidence of breach of contract.

With respect to this specific case, I think the gentleman should not have been fired. It think it was wrong, especially if there was no known rule against this behavior. But that doesn't mean it was illegal, or should be.

The most effective way to counter this is to have AllState products be shunned by those who believe this action was wrong - voluntarily shunned.

Just my opinion, of course.

[Sam the Sham]

The 'intrusion' as you call it will always grow because working people will always ask the power of the state to protect them from arbitrary workplace bullying. Or to be more specific, because working women will always demand the power of the state to protect them from male bullying. It is no accident that workplace regulation is a function of the entry of women into the workforce and the very practical, realistic need of women to protect themselves. And whether newgeezer recognizes it or not the protection of women and the domestication of male urges are the prime functions of civilization.

As GOP_1900AD pointed out no contract can be valid if it is contrary to public policy. For instance, a will that mandated that the heir never marry in order to inherit would be void. A prenup demanded of a pregnant bride is void. An employment contract that allowed the employer to trample on the employee's privacy rights is similarly contrary to public policy.