Just opening the floor for discussion

[quidditchgrrl]

Who's the mofo here? The plaintiff, the library/director, or the ACLU?

Evil Harry Potter Smites God-Fearing Librarian

It is, of course, a lot more complicated than it appears at first glance (not that TMZ is known for its Mensa-level readership).



Reading through the documents, it seems that this associate (as far as I can tell, she is not a "professional" librarian, holding a ML(I)S) did not have a problem working with the HP books - she would check them out, find them for those who asked, etc.

The problem came when she was asked to participate in a HP-themed event, one for which participation appears to have been voluntary (we had one of these for the Book 7 release, and working the HP "areas" was on a volunteer basis).

Problem the second - SHE brought religion into the conversation.  Rather than simply opting out of the festivities, she chose to make it (now literally) a federal case.  I can cite from our ethics code that all duties have to be performed regardless of personal bias, belief or prejudice.  It's like the pharmacists who refuse to dispense certain drugs - follow the law or GTFO.

Libraries are arguably the least tolerant of intolerance in the performance of job duties.  (Hm.  That make sense?)

HOWEVER, why the Director thought it would be a great idea to force this employee to participate or be suspended - yeah, wow.  Talk about your HUGE RED FLAGS whipping in your face!  If there were any other employees who did not participate for whatever (unstated) reason - this organization is in big, big trouble.  IMHO.

I'm calling bullshit on the reduced duties/forced demotion/strenuous work issue, though.  She'd better have documentation of that, and witnesses to back her up that no one else was subjected to those duties at her level.  Most of the time, the term public service does include things like schlepping books - it falls into the other duties as assigned category - and especially during the busy summer months.

I'd love to go into how pissed off I get with the entitlement crowd in my profession, but some of you all are librarians.  ;-)



The resolution in this case will be very interesting to see.  I really can see both sides of the issue here, and I'm glad the ACLU took the case.

What do you think?

Comments

[thursday-last.livejournal.com]

I just noticed you're on library_mofo!

I pretty much agree with what you said: the employee's the one who wrongly brought religion into it. Although, as far as my library system goes, if there's a conflict with your religious beliefs they can't make you work. But if the immediate supervisor said that there was enough coverage that the plaintiff didn't have to work, I don't know why the director would tell her she had to work or face suspension. I'm wondering if maybe there are past issues between the plaintiff and the defendant.

And I'm not sure about the "effective demotion" either. And just how physically weak is she that she passes out from having to carry and shelve books?? And common sense here, if you're feeling weak and/or tired from carrying too many books around, wouldn't you... um, I don't know... take a break? Or tell your supervisor that you don't feel well?

[authenticjoy.livejournal.com]

I'm happy to see the ACLU is defending her. They defended Jerry Falwell back in the day too, but no one ever talks about that.

Someday, I'm going to do some in-depth research and make a comprehensive list of all the Right-Wing Christians that the ACLU has defended in court.

I think the part that *really* strikes me as odd is the part about "hiding" her participation from other members of her church as being sufficient. It's bizarre. That's not part of going against a belief system, that's all about her social caste, and demonstrated a complete lack of cultural understanding on the part of the library administration.

The party was held outside of normal working hours, and she told them straight up that she wasn't able to participate. She also told them would work during the hours leading up to the event, but could not participate during the event because of her religious beliefs. They suspended her because she refused to participate in the event. I don't think it matters who brought religion into the conversation matters - Once the administration was aware that her objections were religious in nature, they should have dropped the matter since the party was outside of her normal work duties.

Anyway, I think you are right. She better have documentation that she was being treated unfairly and wasn't a slacker. If the ACLU took the case, she probably wasn't.

I bet she's going to win this case. And she should. But, I'm no legal eagle. I do keep a close eye on this stuff though because of the way the Right Wingnuts whine about us atheists trying to take away their religion when nothing could be further from the truth.

GAH! I gotta work! Please excuse typos and spelling errors!