Fort Hood: Permissible Discrimination?

Harassment on the basis of religion is against the law. So is religious discrimination. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the shooter at Fort Hood, had complained about religious harassment, and the Army seems to have been intent on avoiding religious discrimination. (Read other posts on the shooting at Ft. Hood.)

As it turns out, in classroom presentations in a military medical program, Major Hasan gave justification for suicide bombings. He was conflicted on what to tell Muslim soldiers about fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. His students/classmates complained about Hasan’s “anti-American propaganda.” There was reluctance, however, on the part of officers to file a formal complaint against Hasan for fear of appearing to discriminate against a Muslim.

There’s no question that laws are necessary to prevent unlawful discrimination. When managers and supervisors back off discipline and termination of an employee in a protected class for fear of being accused of discrimination, however, the tale wags the dog.

The more basic purpose of these laws is to ensure equal employment opportunity. That means equal opportunity for everything: hiring, promotion, pay, discipline, and firing. It doesn’t mean giving protected classes of employees special treatment. It also doesn’t justify crazy employment decisions.

Would a Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist soldier be allowed to speak favorably about suicide bombings? Or to openly challenge the Army’s role in an ongoing war? Would he be designated for deployment to Afghanistan as Major Hasan, a Muslim, was?

Discrimination is unlawful all right, and an employee can complain about it. But when a person in a protected class takes action and uses words antithetical to his employer’s purpose, no law provides protection. When an employer declines to take action against an employee because he’s in a protected class, it undermines consistent discipline and compromises equal employment opportunity. It usually doesn’t create a deadly situation for an employer, but Fort Hood demonstrates that it can.

Learn more in the HR Guide to Employment Law: A practical compliance reference manual covering 14 topics, including workplace violence, discipline and documentation, and terminations

1. 

   Les says:

   November 10, 2009 at 11:03 am

   Not taking disciplinary action when a common rule is broken because it was broken by a person in a protected class, becomes discrimination against all the other people in the company or department. While there is no guarantee against the filing of a legal suit and the costs that go with it, following the old adage of being “fair, firm and consistent” can be a strong defense. Equal treatment is equal treatment, and just because one person is unhappy does not give him/her license to act any way they feel like it and break the rules. The rules are to protect ALL parties.