Political discrimination

Paul in Cannon Beach

WildSporty's thread on religious discrimination got me thinking.

Is political affiliation or belief a protected class? I don't believe it is.

Could I post an ad saying "Seeking office manager to work in very conservative office environment. Liberals need not apply."

Just wondering.

ray a

Well, political candidates hire only people who believe as they do politically to work on their campaigns. I couldn't imagine Hillary hiring me to work on her campaign if she checked out my political beliefs.

Dutch2

Yep, working for any "elected" official seems to be akin to political discrimination. They certaily wouldn't want anyone on their payroll wearing the symbol of the opposing party.

NaeNae55

Good question. To go further, what if someone who wanted to work for a campaign but had certain religious values that opposed one or more of the items on the political agenda?

For instance, someone who was a registered democrat wanted to be hired to work on Hilary Clinton's campaign and it turned out this person held strong religious views against something Hilary supported (ie: abortion rights or gay rights). Would not hiring this person come down to religious discrimination with a political slant?

Ok. I'm sorry I went there. Just thinking about it is giving me a headache.


Nae

Tony Kessler

Paul, this issue apparently doesn't come up in the courts very much, but you can find an interesting article about it in the newsletter archives from the February 2005 issue of Illinois Employment Law Letter, a state that knows a thing or two about political patronage. In the case, a public employee (Hall) protested because his co-worker (Barger) got a job they both wanted -- allegedly due to political discrimination because the bosses thought Barger was a "better Republican." As it turned out, the court said the selection committee had good reasons to pick Barger, and the majority reportedly didn't even know about the candidates' political affiliation. Regardless of the outcome, here are two paragraphs from the article that may shed some light on the court's thinking about political discrimination. Hope it helps. tk
---------------
As a public employee, Hall had some constitutionally protected rights in his job. One was to be free to engage in political activities without any influence on his job, a right that derives from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So he was entirely correct that it would have been improper for the selection committee to favor Barger over him because of his greater party loyalty or another perceived political reason.

In this type of employment discrimination case — that is, discrimination because of political motivation — the framework for analysis isn't much different from that in more commonplace discrimination disputes. Hall had to show that his conduct (political activity) was constitutionally protected (no problem) and that his protected conduct was a motivating factor in the employment decision (problem).

Paul in Cannon Beach

Interesting. Of course that is for public employees. What about those of us in the wild and wooly private sector?

Any protection that you can think of?

I wonder if you tried to hire only Republicans if someone could say that you were discriminating against ethnicities that are possibly underrepresented in the Republican party?

I am not sure why you would want to hire only people from a certain political leaning anyways.

System

>I am not sure why you would want to hire only
>people from a certain political leaning anyways.

Lee Smith, our company founder, is a big-time Republican, and our flagship publication is [link:www.mleesmith.com/tenn/tnj.shtml|The Tennessee Journal], a pro-business political newsletter. But he hired me as a political reporter for the Journal even though I lean more Democratic and Libertarian.

I checked in our book [link:www.hrhero.com/50x50/|50 Employment Laws in 50 States], and the laws specifically protecting political activity tend to be for public-sector. But some broad laws protecting off-duty activity in general apply to the private sector in a few states.

And I think it would be religious discrimination to reject a job applicant based on their religion (or lack thereof) or their views on abortion. Or it could be race discrimination as you said, Paul.

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

atrimble

I know, I'm going back to the public employee thing, sorry. But I can tell you from personal experience that even in governmental settings, your personal political views can be held against you and impede your professional progress. I'm in a social services segment of government, and our last executive director often referred to me as her token Republican. Which is weird, because first - I'm not republican, and second - there are at least six others on staff that ARE registered republican and much more conservative and vocal about it. But she didn't have daily contact with them, so I got to be her token. I got this label by supporting an ex-co-worker who had to resign to run for office, and she chose the republican ticket, even though she was a social worker! I was read the riot act and the Hatch Act when the e.d. found out I was on the campaign committee. Ever since then, I've been pidgeon-holed as a boring stuffed shirt and referred away from most advancement opportunities.

Hmm, that sounds a bit too bitter for a Friday morning - my apologies to the Forum, again! Paul, political affiliation is not yet a protected class in any segment of employment law that I can think of, but it might ought to be! I inserted this in our personnel policy a while back, and I don't think political persuasion is mentioned: XXX adopts and adheres to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; The Missouri Human Rights Act; The Equal Pay Act of 1963; Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; The Civil Rights Act of 1871; Americans With Disabilities Act; The Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidelines.

Paul in Cannon Beach

I agree with Atrimble. I am not sure that there is any protection for political discrimination in the private sector. I wonder if some city ordinances might cover it.

You would think that in a society that places such value on the ability to hold and express a variety of political opinions that some protection might be afforded.

Not that I want more discrimination areas for litigation.