Lawsuit: Ga. man fired for refusing to wear '666'

[doggie]

I agree they should not have fired him but he is a pretty big flake. I think the beast got him

ATLANTA (AP) - A Georgia factory worker claims in a federal lawsuit that he was fired after he refused to wear a '666' sticker he feared would doom him to eternal damnation.

Billy E. Hyatt claims he was fired from Pliant Corp., a plastics factory in northern Georgia near Dalton, after he refused to wear a sticker proclaiming that his factory had been accident-free for 666 days. That number is considered the "mark of the beast" in the Bible's Book of Revelation describing the apocalypse.

Hyatt, who said he's a devout Christian, had worked for the north Georgia plastics company since June 2007 and like other employees wore stickers each day that proclaimed how long the factory had gone without an accident.

But he grew nervous in early 2009 as the number of accident-free days crept into the 600s. As the company's safety calendar approached day 666, Hyatt said he approached a manager and explained that wearing it would force him "to accept the mark of the beast and to be condemned to hell." He said the manager assured him he wouldn't have to wear the number.

When the day came on March 12, 2009, Hyatt sought a manager to discuss his request. He said he was told that his beliefs were "ridiculous" and that he should wear the sticker or serve a three-day suspension.

Hyatt took the three-day suspension, and was fired at a human resources meeting several days later. He then filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and his attorney Stephen Mixon said the agency granted him the right to sue the company in August.

The lawsuit, which seeks punitive damages and back pay, said the company forced him into a terrible situation: Keep his job or "abandon his religious beliefs."

The company, now known as Berry Plastics Corp., did not return several calls and emails seeking comment. It has yet to respond to the complaint in court.

[fundiefan]

Knowing the date was coming, as is stated he did know in the article, why didn't he just schedule a vacation or personal day that day? Why didn't he call in sick that day? He could have gone from 665 to 667 with no fuss, no problem, no...nothing.

While being fired is ridiculous, he did have options before the date ever arrived. Instead, he took no preemptive actions to support his own proclaimed values, then expected the company to accommodate him.

[JesusFightClub]

The guy's a total weirdo, but this illustrates the perils of not having a union rep onside.

My guess, he walked into the HR meeting alone, made himself look utterly mental, may well have been abusive and was sacked for cause. That wasn't automatic, and these cases make me sad.

[Kitty]

Here's attempt #5 to post this shit. My college's internet connection really sucks today, for some reason.

Believing that a goddamn NUMBER will send you to hell is pretty fucking ridiculous. People who tend to fear a certain fucking number often have other ridiculous beliefs, so he was probably fired for pushing his "religious beliefs" on everyone else, and generally being a fucking moron.

[debrand]

Knowing the date was coming, as is stated he did know in the article, why didn't he just schedule a vacation or personal day that day? Why didn't he call in sick that day? He could have gone from 665 to 667 with no fuss, no problem, no...nothing.

While being fired is ridiculous, he did have options before the date ever arrived. Instead, he took no preemptive actions to support his own proclaimed values, then expected the company to accommodate him.

Maybe he couldn't have afforded to take a day off? My husband used up all his vacation when his mother died. He can't take any more days off for a few more months.

I don't think that he should have been fired either.

[Lainey]

I don't think he should have been fired...if this is all there is to the story. But I do think there's probably more to the story.

[doggie]

I don't think he should have been fired...if this is all there is to the story. But I do think there's probably more to the story.

I agree he may have went a bit nuts not that he is a bit nuts or anything :naughty:

[fundiefan]

I don't think he should have been fired...if this is all there is to the story. But I do think there's probably more to the story.

There is always more to the story. The number of dismissed lawsuits is evidence of that. Taking one piece of an intricate puzzle and trying to cash in on it rarely works. Whatever the other pieces of that story are/were, they will play into the case. While not every business it ethical and upstanding, most are overall, especially since they know they can be sued. I doubt seriously that he was placed on suspension and then fired just for refusing to wear a sticker.

[Rachel333]

That's silly. The number of the beast is 612, duh.

But yeah, firing him seems a little extreme, but the sticker should not have been a big deal at all.

[liltwinstar]

I'm guessing there's way more to the story. If it had been a case of religious discrimination, the EEOC would have most likely come down on the side of the employee. The fact that they issued the right-to-sue letter means that they couldn't find in favor of either party, so a lawsuit is the next step.

My guess is that they guy was probably on discipline for other performance issues and this was the final incident of insubordination, since a good HR person would not fire someone when the case could be made that the firing was due to a religious belief/practice. I work in HR and I wouldn't approve a term like this, nor would my boss. Now, if it were in a long string of other discipline issues, I can see why they would - but still, seems that they should have given the sticker incident a pass.

[FemaleScientist]

Although I agree that this man is crazy, he may technically have a lawsuit here. You can't fire someone based on their religious affiliation, and if he fired him for his beliefs (which this is a case of), this employer may be in trouble.

Of course, we need to hear both sides of the story to make an accurate claim. I think firing him is a bit extreme... just don't have him wear the sticker. =\ How is it any different than reprimanding a muslim for wearing a burka at work?

[emmiedahl]

In some cases, wearing a burqa could interfere with the job or even be a safety hazard.

If this is all there is to this story (which I doubt), then he certainly has grounds to sue. But I doubt that is *all*, kwim? I mean, this was in Georgia, where fundamentalist Christians are everywhere.

[SunnyAndrsn]

There's no way that this is the entire story. While I think he was being an idiot, I also think the company is stupid for making their employees wear these stickers every day.

If it WAS me, I likely would have called in sick, scheduled a vacation day, personal day, etc. Although, I don't think that he should have had to do that either. What's the big effing deal about wearing a stupid sticker?

It just comes back to the fact that there is more to the story.

As Dr. House says: Everybody lies

[Kelya]

I bet he made a big stink about it and they fired him for being disruptive or verbally abusive or behavior unbecoming or something like that. If he was really fired for not wearing the stupid sticker that's ridiculous, but I'm betting he did some usual fundie tactic of preaching or being obnoxious or something to prove his martyrdom for christ via sticker, which got him fired.

[bananacat]

SunnyAndrsn, I was just gonna say the same thing. There is more to this story. Refusing to wear the sticker was probably just the last thing in a long line of problems this man caused. In fact, maybe he was creeping others out in some way that would be really hard to document so they had to wait for something like this to actually fire him.

[jesusfreak]

He should have just had an accident on day 665.

[Kitten]

You can't fire someone for their religious beliefs, but you can fire them if they allow their religious beliefs to interfere with the requirements of the job. Ideally, you find this out in the interview stage - hence, the question that is often framed as "Here are the requirements of the job, blah, blah, blah - do you anticipate having any problem complying with those requirements?" (By the way, this question is also used to "sniff out" things that you can't legally ask directly, like "Do you have children?" or "Do you have a physical or mental disability?")

Now, granted, someone realizing that they would not be "able" to wear a sticker with the number 666 on it is probably not going to come out that way. But you can often use it to recognize an applicant whose beliefs are likely to cause issues, like an employee who would refuse to work on any of his/her religious holidays, work with people who do not observe his/her religious beliefs, wear specified uniforms/safety clothing, or handle certain merchandise, etc., etc. Or someone who would constantly proselytize on the job, or criticize the behavior/choices of co-workers, etc.

He should have just had an accident on day 665.

This. :lol: :lol: :clap:

[Witsec7]

I'm guessing there's way more to the story. If it had been a case of religious discrimination, the EEOC would have most likely come down on the side of the employee. The fact that they issued the right-to-sue letter means that they couldn't find in favor of either party, so a lawsuit is the next step.

My guess is that they guy was probably on discipline for other performance issues and this was the final incident of insubordination, since a good HR person would not fire someone when the case could be made that the firing was due to a religious belief/practice. I work in HR and I wouldn't approve a term like this, nor would my boss. Now, if it were in a long string of other discipline issues, I can see why they would - but still, seems that they should have given the sticker incident a pass.

I was considering that the progressive discipline standard was already in process. This fellow willingly accepted the suspension. Suspension is kinda stiff for a first infraction even if the worker was not represented by a union.

I posted this story with the Southern forum i visit and the IFBs swear this number is the mark of the beast. My DD has a tshirt with my Little Pony, Gumby, a Care Bear, My Little Kitty, Strawberry Short Cake and Scooby Doo all in a line with 666 on their foreheads.