On The Front Lines
The Rutherford Institute Defends the Right of State Trooper, Office Worker to Religious Expression in the Workplace
Institute Attorneys Present Oral Arguments Before Appeals Court on Behalf of Endres and HolmesCHICAGO, Ill.--Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute presented oral arguments before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, November 1, 2002, on behalf of Benjamin Endres and Patricia Holmes, who have charged their state employers with violating their constitutional right to religious expression in the workplace under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Endres, a former Indiana state trooper, was fired for refusing to work on a riverboat casino because of his Christian beliefs. Holmes, an employee at the Marion County Office of Family and Children in Indiana, was prohibited from wearing a headwrap known as a geles as part of her West African religious practice. The state of Indiana moved to dismiss both cases, claiming that the federal government did not have the authority to authorize religious discrimination suits against states under Title VII and that under the Eleventh Amendment states were immune to suits by private parties in federal court. Rutherford Institute attorneys contend that under the Fourteenth Amendment a state cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" and that Eleventh Amendment immunity does not prevent Endres and Holmes from making claims under Title VII.
In March 2000, the Indiana State Police gave Benjamin Endres a one-year assignment as a Gaming Commission Agent to the Blue Chip Casino in Michigan City, Indiana. Both before and after receiving the assignment, Endres informed his supervisors of his sincere religious objection to working on the riverboat as an agent of the Gaming Commission. He felt it would convey the message that he condoned the riverboat casino's activities, such as gambling and drinking. Nevertheless, the State Police Department made no effort to accommodate Endres, and it fired him for insubordination after an administrative hearing. In April 2000, Patricia Holmes filed a complaint alleging that the Marion County Office of Family and Children discriminated against her because she wore a geles headwrap as part of her religious practice. She said that her supervisor informed her that she would be written up for insubordination for violating the office dress code policy if she did not stop wearing the geles. Holmes informed her supervisor that due to religious reasons she could not remove her geles and had to take two vacation days to avoid being disciplined. In addition, her supervisor refused to allow her to wear the headwrap even though other employees were allowed to wear headgear or hats without being threatened with disciplinary action.
"Faithful employees like Ben Endres and Patricia Holmes are perfect examples of the reasons for the protection afforded religious employees in the Civil Rights Act," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "The law simply recognizes that it would be improper and insensitive for an employer to order a Hindu employee to work at a hamburger stand when there's an opening at the salad bar, to force a Jewish man to remove his yarmulke because of an office policy against headwear, or to order a Baptist police officer to work as a gaming agent."
The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.
Press Contact
Nisha N. MohammedPh: (434) 978-3888, ext. 604; Pager: 800-946-4646, Pin #: 1478257
Email: Nisha N. Mohammed
