He said he wouldn’t join his company’s Bible study. After being let go, he’s suing.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A 34-year-old painter is suing Dahled Up Construction, a company based south of Portland, Ore., for allegedly firing him after he refused to join a Christian Bible group for employees. Ryan Coleman is seeking $800,000 from the company after its owner allegedly said participation in the Bible group was required if he wanted to keep his job.
Coleman told The Washington Post that when he explained to the company's owner, Joel Dahl, that he had different beliefs, Dahl said: "If you want to keep your job, everybody needs to attend. If not, I'm going to be forced to replace you."
Coleman said he initially took part in the weekly, hour-long Bible classes for six months, fearing he wouldn't be able to find another job.
Dahl's attorney, Kent Hickam, described Dahl as a "second-chance employer." Dahl told the Oregonian that he once served prison time for attempted second-degree assault and struggled with drugs and alcohol. He said he started Dahled Up Construction in 2016 after years of staying sober with the hope of hiring other convicted felons or those who have battled addiction.
Coleman has a past felony conviction and served a prison sentence for child neglect and for selling methamphetamine. But he's been sober for years and recently won custody of his 10- and 14-year-old sons.
Coleman told The Post that after being hired by Dahled Up Construction in October, he woke up excited every morning to work with his painting crew.
"It's tough to find a job like that," he said.
Hickam told the Oregonian that the Bible studies were required. But when reached by The Post, Hickam said the sessions were a "weekly, motivational team building exercise" held at a homeless shelter. He said the sessions were scheduled at the end of an afternoon shift. Employees who attended would be paid for that hour, and employees who did not attend would not be paid.
Asked repeatedly to clarify whether the session was mandatory for employees, Hickam said, "There's a lot of great lessons to be learned from the Bible, and I think it's wonderful he made this opportunity available for his employees."
Coleman said he didn't learn about the Bible sessions until after he started working for Dahl. Coleman told The Post that he first asked Dahl if he could schedule appointments or other meetings during the Bible study hour so he wouldn't have to miss work. Dahl's response, Coleman said, was that there was no other option and that Coleman had to be there.
Coleman is not a practicing Christian and told Dahl multiple times that he wasn't comfortable attending the Bible study. In April, Coleman allegedly told Dahl in a phone call that he had a right not to attend the Christian Bible study, at which point he was fired, according to court documents.
Coleman's attorney, Corinne Schram, said she knows of no other reason that Coleman was let go. Coleman was able to find another job painting after he was let go from Dahled Up Construction, but he has stepped away from that job since gaining custody of his sons.
Deborah Widiss, a law professor at Indiana University at Bloomington, said federal law prohibits companies from firing or hiring based on an employee's religious beliefs. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers cannot discriminate against workers on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin or religion. Protections for employees' religious choices are important not only in cases of discrimination, Widiss said, but also to accommodate and support workers' practices and beliefs.
Dahled Up Construction's website links to a Facebook page that has been taken down. Video ads for the company say it specializes in painting, roofing and home remodeling.
Coleman is suing for $50,000 for alleged loss of income, and an additional $750,000 for mental stress and humiliation.
Coleman said he hopes his case will show others that they are entitled to stand up for their beliefs, even if they differ from their employers'.
"It doesn't matter if you believe in Allah or Buddha or anybody," Coleman said. "It should not be used against you if you're trying to make a paycheck for a company you enjoy working for. It's your right."
Tags
Who is online
234 visitors
Certainly seems like a winnable case to me. Or is this another case of the owners religious rights being violated.
Yeah, it sounds like a pretty easy case for the employee to win even with a Trump DOJ and an EEOC which will be hostile to his civil rights. He could sue under state or federal law and easily win.
And take the theocratic owner for all he's worth too!
Gordy you and Skrekk are of course correct, if the owner has any brains he'll settle before this goes to court
He'll be required to climb up on the cross first for a few laps on the obligatory xtian persecution parade.
I think that's more of a team event than a solo one from what I've seen.
A religious persecution team? Is this sport a relay race or do they all get to whine at once?
Lol a little bit of them all
What nonsense on the part of the owner....He should know better and it would seem from the information in the article that Coleman has a winnable case.
I know of two local businesses that have Bible study with their employees. At one place, it's mandatory (didn't stop the owner from cheating on his wife, though). At the other, one employee quit attending, and the owners had the sense to leave her alone.
I think the only time an employer can actually get away with that crap is if the employer is a church or is owned by a church or other superstitious group. Otherwise the employer's superstitions are irrelevant to whether he violated his employee's civil rights.
Oh, I agree, of course. But employees have to actually object, and they haven't, except for the one.
That part amazes me, particularly given that this happened in Oregon rather than the bible-babble belt. Even most Christians I know would object if their employer did that.
I live in a very religious area.
Another business owned by Scientologists acted similarly, but at least one of their employees objected.
These were all dental offices. You'd be surprised at the opinions some dentists express online about their offices being their castles.
I consider my employees' religious convictions, or lack thereof, to be their own damn business, like an American should.
I've stopped shopping at certain businesses because of the owner's strong religious views. I don't want religious literature placed in a bag with my purchases and I will not subsidize their theocratic dreams. I ended a 20-year friendship because the business owner publically insulted me and sent me unsigned Bible passages when I left the chuch and became a Humanist.
Just curious why anyone would be offended by recieving literature?
He knew her beliefs, and didn't respect them. That's why.
That reminds me of the bible-thumping Iowa dentist who fired his assistant because she was too hot.
So throw it out. No need to be upset over nothing.
I think that is a huge problem in America---people who feel "offended" over the smallest of things in life, as though they have some "right" to go through life completely and forever unoffended.
I wonder if those same people get "offended" when they see the Salvation Army bellringers at the holidays.
I have a problem with receiving anonymous religious passages as passive-aggressive threats to go back to chuch. He was too stupid to use a printer/typewriter to address the envelope and instead wrote it by hand. I recognized the handwriting from previous bills of sale.
I almost always throw the coins that I received as change into the kettle. I'd give more but the Salvation Army are religious bigots who don't treat LGBT people as equals to heterosexuals in shelters.
The last religious pamphlet I got was a blatant trademark infringement handed to me by a door to door thumper that had woken me up. I forwarded it to the internet company for shits and giggles after I had called the police on the trespassing solicitors and scored 3 times. I just noticed that their strip mall church was no longer existent today. I think they may have merged with the new thumper madrasa working out of the nearby high school. Must be cheaper rent that way.
She just decided not to be friends. Is she required to remain friends with a man who refuses to respect her?
Of course not, and no one suggested such nonsense.
Why did you ask that when no one even suggested it?
I get religious nonsense in my mailbox or hung on the door in poly bags almost once a week. Usually it goes directly into the recycle can but occasionally when I am feeling vindictive I have been known to drop it in the mail collection boxes where they are forced to pay for the return delivery back to their church. There is a free newspaper that I receive on Tuesday that has conservative religious and political articles and adverts. I refer to it as the TEAbag Times. It also goes into the recycle can.
If I desired to learn about their beliefs I can search online or go to services at their church, but I find it insulting when try to convert me with their junk mail.
Nor is she required to do business with those who use their business to proselytize.
She took her business elsewhere. I thought we were all about the free market?
She ended a friendship with someone who disrespected her.
Both legitimate choices in response to their choices.
Do you believe that I have stated differently?
Are you looking for an argument or what?
I have stated the business owner was wrong.
Sorry if I don't jump on some stupid-ass bandwagon and call for the owner to be fined millions of dollars and imprisoned.
The business owner in the OP violated the law by forcing his employees to take part in religious activities. An employer cannot ask what your religious views are during an interview, so why did this dipstick think that forcing those same employees to take part in bible study would be permitted? There are criminal penalties because of civil rights violations and the employee also has the option of seeking civil damages as well.
Nobody wants to see him jailed for religious stupidity. He won't be able to pay off any judgements against him.
You will have to ask him that, or just make up an answer.
I don't see anyone defending the owner's actions, do you?
You're the one asking why not just throw it away.
She did, and then removed herself from a situation in which she was receiving unwanted sermons. You're the only one who seems to be upset by that. Why is that? Her removing herself from situations she found to be annoying seems to be having an inordinate effect on you.
Okay, I'll play along with you and just pretend that no one wrote posts 5.1 and 5.1.2.
And of course, the sentiments expressed in 6.1.9 and 6.1.10 don't really exist either, right?
I would never equate someone asking questions with them being upset, but, hey, if it works for you.....go for it!
I just feel her reaction was a little much. I'm much more laid back and don't think people are out to offend me if they do something I personally don't like.
Sue me.
You seem to have a problem with people rejecting religious belief and that this business owner will be held legally and civilly accountable for his actions. I wonder why that would be? It's almost as if you have strong religious beliefs but don't want to admit it.
It's more like you almost have no clue as to what I have actually written here.
I defended no one, and said the owner was wrong.
I am sorry, but I'm not willing to violate the 8th Amendment to make someone else feel better.
10 or a hundred million dollar fine or judgment is ridiculous for this case. So is imprisonment for 10 years or life.
No amount of arguing about that will change my mind because it is simply freaking ridiculous!
Nope! In Oregon you can be fired from your job for any reason what so ever of even for no reason at all.
That doesn't ignore federal civil rights protections.
and,
Employers in work-at-will states are still subject to ant-discrimination laws.
You think the reaction was a bit much, but you're not bothered by it?
It seems you like to have it both ways.
Gee, I don't know how to take that. It is almost like you haven't read my posts where I stated that the business owner was wrong.
Excuse the heck out of me for not wanting to join the mob who want him fined, imprisoned, stoned, etc.
That certainly doesn't mean I support what he did.
That would be like me saying you don't want to punish an embezzler if you didn't demand the same crazy things some on here have advocated for this business owner. Completely wrong and rather silly.
Where did I say you supported the employer? Whose posts are you reading? Not mine, apparently.
Let's run through this conversation, shall we?
Epistte said she had stopped doing business with some businesses that put religious literature in with her purchases, and ended a friendship with a man who sent her scriptures after she'd left the church.
You asked why she would be offended, and wondered why she didn't just throw them away.
It was explained to you that she did throw most of them away, and that having someone disrespect one's beliefs is offensive enough to call off a friendship.
Do you,nor do you not, recognize that businesses which engage in unwanted proselytizing risk losing customers, and friends who do the same risk losing friends? Why should either customers or friends be expected to overlook unwanted proselytizing?
Nowhere in the conversation did I mention your opinion of the employer in the seeded article. YOU brought that up, not me.
Yes, let's.
I have stated the business owner was wrong.
Somehow, some people think I support the owner.
What I stated was that trying to impose a $10 million or $100 million judgment and a prison term of 10 years or life was stupid, ridiculous, and a violation of the 8th Amendment.
Now, if you think those punishments are appropriate, go for it.
I don't think they are, and think the proposals I have heard here are just plain stupid.
If they sound at all plausible to you, it looks like you have some company agreeing with you.
But it damn sure will never be me, because the proposals are stupid.
I HAVE NEVER SAID YOU SUPPORT THE OWNER.
I AM RESPONDING TO YOUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY ONE MIGHT BE OFFENDED BY RECEIVING UNWANTED RELIGIOUS LITERATURE.
You seem to be responding to comments I have not made. Look back through this thread.
Some people's entire reason to post here is to annoy people any way they can. I respond to them sometimes too, but it's probably best to just ignore them.
I have looked back, and know exactly what I have posted.
Have fun arguing nothing.
[Removed]
Yes, you responded to one of my posts politely, and I asked a question which you conveniently ignored.
[Removed.....]
ok, so where are the conservative religious minded NT posters to defend this employer's "religious rights" to force his employees to attend weekly bible study ? isn't the employer's "religious freedoms" being violated ?
Be patient
Do you believe the owner's rights were being violated?
nope. Do you believe the owner's rights were being violated ?
Not at all, but then again, I wasn't the one asking where people were to defend the owner, either.
oh good, we agree - so you have no further comments to make (for once). have a great day !
Duh.
That is why that was the last post until you felt it necessary to tell me we agreed on it.
gee.. i stated :
i guess i was wrong .. please go ahead and reply again - prove that you still need to have that last word
I'd only attend the bible study if I was being paid overtime wages for the time. I'd still wear a Humanist t-shirt.
He should have a good case. Don't know about him winning an $800,000. judgement tho.
A $10,000,000 dollar judgement would be more apt. With a 10 year prison term tacked on for the owner-prophesier.
That is ridiculous.
As ridiculous as the employer making people attend Bible study.
Alright. How about a $100,000,000 dollar penalty then? And a life prison term?
SMFH
Sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me--something which is banned here.
Hardly. The only thing banned here are 'certain people' for certain events.
I don't believe you have been paying attention.
The 8th Amendment prohibits it.
I didn't notice any words concerning only for certain people or certain events, can you tell me where they are in the 8th Amendment, please?
A businessman understands money so make it hurt where he will feel it the most. Make an example of him so that others get the message and don't try the same stunt with their employees.
Keep your religious views to yourself and stop trying to trample the equal religious rights of others. Your employees aren't your congregation and neither are your customers.
Sorry, but I believe what the poster suggested was ludicrous at best.
$10 million or $100 million and ten years or life in prison is ridiculous any way you can possibly look at it.
That is your opinion. It's up to a jury to decide criminal or civil penalties. The 10 years incarceration is excessive but large monetary awards will get the attention of these religious loons who think that is they can hide behind religion they can ignore the law and trample the secular rights of others.
Religion is a private matter, so keep it that way.
$10 or $100 million in fines for this offense and 10 years or life imprisonment would be a violation of the 8th Amendment.
Not only that, it is flat-out crazy.
As George Carlin once said in his revised commandments list:
"Thou shall honor the provider of thy nookie."
"Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."
Other than Valentine's day, is there a holiday that I should be expecting a card and roses for?
Your birthday?
Maybe instead he could just be separated from his children.
Maybe people who believe in wild fairytale fantasies should all be separated from their children, until they regain their sanity.
Yeah, that really sounds sane and rational.
/S
I'm not going to share my birthday with another holiday. My birthday is already overshadowed by Christmas as it is. As a child I hated those cheap ****** who bought be one gift for both my birthday and X-mas. If a date would try that I would order every expensive item on the menu and then take a cab home after the appetizer when I slipped off to the ladies room to touch up my lipstick.
Ha! Just be thankful your b-day isn't Feb 29th.
You're probably right but you know how lawsuits go, ask for a high amount, settle for less.
Kind of like haggling on the price of a house that's for sale.
Christian Taliban are here.
Also must assume that the owner, Joel Dahl, would NOT hire a Hindu or a Krishna?
Are you asking or already assuming?
A question mark at the end of a sentence almost always signifies a sense of wonderment.
Am sure you are knowledgeable on this matter--so the answer to my question would be-----------------what?
Why would you assume that?
Forgive me. An assumption on paying attention would of course be a wrong assumption.
it was in your post #6.
Otherwise, I wouldn't have asked you.
maybe you weren't paying attention to what you had just posted.
Well you could have just answered. Are only Christians considered for these jobs? Would a Jewish person be forced? An atheist? Or just not hired? If so, would it be ok for same folks when Christians were forced to participate in a different religious meeting? Does it sound like a good idea to you?
Never said it sounded good. In fact, I stated differently already.
Lol, I noticed that, Tex, you aren't defending this, and who would defend mandatory bible classes to keep your job? So, what are you arguing for, just for the sake of arguing?
I was arguing that a proposed 10 million or 100 million fine and 10 years or life in prison for the business owner was rather silly.
Do you think those would be appropriate punishments, or possibly a violation of the 8th Amendment?
My response to Lib50 was because apparently he/she did not see my earlier response on the matter where I stated the owner was wrong.
Keep up.
I agree. I think biblical punishments would be more appropriate here. At the very least the owner should be visited by "demons" and have his first born son put to death.
We should stone him.
Yeah, that sounds logical and possible.
/S
Ooooh, such an idea!
Work on getting that passed somewhere, will ya?
No, I didn't see it, haven't been here as much and can't keep up with all the comments. Sorry, but glad to hear you don't think its a good idea.
And do you think any of the "punishments" advocated for here are realistic in any way? And specifically, I mean 10 years or life in prison and $10 million or a $100 million judgment?
Would you think those might be JUST a little extreme?
Do you not understand that I am parodying religious belief on what the punishment of heresy should be?
Based on my personal experiences with your posts, sometimes it is difficult to tell when you are serious.
I would prefer feeding him to the lions myself.
I've seen a few of these religious loons, and I doubt that lions want that much fat in their diet. Cats tend to prefer lean protein.
Did you forget that I oppose the death penalty, except maybe for treason?
Did not know that or really care.
For all I know, maybe your intent to stone wouldn't have been a death sentence and instead only inflict permanent, non-lethal damage.
How about crucifixion and stoning? That way the bible-babbling employer can enjoy his Christian persecution complex.
With the obvious disdain you hold for some religious people, I am surprised you can even bring yourself to vote for one.
I personally don't care what someone's religious beliefs are until they try to legislate based on their views and to attempt to deny others equal rights because of them.
Lions are a hoot. But it just doesn't have the 1 on 1 personalization or variety that Inquisition style has, lol
If I had intended the comment for you, then I would have addressed it to you.
I think there are a lot of 'punishments' advocated for and meted out that are not just. Sometimes they are justified and sometimes they aren't, but since our values seem based on $$$ and greed, it isn't surprising that is how punishment is often administered. I think the guy is justified with what he is asking for here (which isn't tens of millions and jail time), do you? Poor people are hit with fines and punishments all the time that might as well be tens of millions, so if one looks at the big money fines, one better look at what amounts to the same impact for the little guy. Otherwise, tough shit for the wealthy too. I would love for a total recalibration of our justice system.
Yes I think he is justified for asking what he asked for.
But what I specifically referred to and objected to are insane calls to imprison him for 10 years or life nd a judgment of $10 or 100 million.
That's why biblical punishments are far more appropriate, like 50 shekels of silver and a good stoning.
And those "suggestions" are JUST as stupid and silly as those others are.
No, don't see this as a reason to jail him. Fines and stopping him from doing it in the future, maybe some service so he can learn something himself. Money seems to be what people respond to.
I wish more were as reasonable about it.
I agree that this is obscene... but I wonder how it is different from refusing some aspects of women's health care "on religious grounds"?
Except it would be the woman who was actually choosing and doing it herself, for herself, nobody forced to do it with her. Somehow outsiders always seem to think they have a voice in women's personal business. Nobody should have a voice in a woman's healthcare except the woman. Especially an employer or church.
Well colour me very surprised, no one has tried to make any argument that this is within the owners religious rights. I am impressed.
Although the Trump DoJ will certainly file an amicus brief on behalf of the employer.....
Possibly, but given the lack of support being evidenced here I'd be shocked. Of course I've been surprised before so who knows?
There are limitations to all rights and until some reasonable tort reform happens it will just continue to get worse.
Case in point, i’m very pro 2nd amendment but when a more liberal CCW law passed in our state I drafted company policy what DID NOT allow concealed carry while on company time, property or equipment.
If a legal document existed that would completely indemnify my company and hold us absolutely harmless if an employee did something stupid with that concealed weapon while in our employ, then I would be all for it. But that doesn’t exist in our state, prolly not in most states so it’s out of bounds for our company.
It does get a little hinky but legally as a company, we are not required to open ourselves up to such potential liability. Regardless of what the constitution sez. I don’t like it but it’s a good thing overall for business owners considering the current state our legal system.