GM Prevails in Religious Discrimination Suit

Jurist is reporting in this Paper Chase Newsburst the following:

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit . . . [this past] Thursday upheld the dismissal . . .  of a suit alleging religious discrimination against General Motors (GM). The case is Moranski v. General Motors, 2005 WL 3549219 (7th Cir. Dec. 29, 2005).

Writing for the court, Judge Ann Claire Williams supported the decision to dismiss the lawsuit because the corporation's Affinity Group . . . diversity program treated all religions equally by prohibiting the promotion of any religion. The suit, brought by Indianapolis GM plant worker John Moranski, alleged that the program discriminated against religion since it did not permit the formation of an interdenominational Christian group. Although the program allows groups of people with disabilities, gays and lesbians, women and veterans, and people of Hispanic, African or Asian ancestry, it prohibits groups with any religious affiliation. AP has more.

The case, brought under the religious discrimination provisions of Title VII, illustrates that a company may choose to treat religious groups different from other types of employee groups, as long as all religious groups are treated the same. The 7th Circuit stated in this regard: "Here, the allegations in Moranski’s complaint make clear that General Motors would have taken the same action had he possessed a different religious position."  Indeed, as the court explained further: "The Guidelines preclude recognition of Affinity Groups based on any religious 'position, including
agnosticism, atheism, and secular humanism.'"

Although such reasoning would probably not fly under the religion clauses of the First Amendment and established Supreme Court precedent in this area, there was no state action in this case and thus, the First Amendment was not implicated (see footnote 3 of the opinion: "We note that General Motors is not a federal or state actor.  Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a
government body may not be able to open a forum for private speech and exclude from that forum speech regarding the entire subject matter of religion. See, e.g., Grossbaum v. Indianapolis-
Marion County Bldg. Auth., 63 F.3d 581, 592 (7th Cir. 1995).").

PS