library_mofo: Opening the floor for discussion

You say bitch like it's a bad thing (

quidditchgrrl) wrote in

library_mofo,
@ 2008-05-28 22:07:00

Current location:	43229
Current mood:	curious

Opening the floor for discussion

Who's the mofo here? The plaintiff, the library/director, or the ACLU?

Evil Harry Potter Smites God-Fearing Librarian

It is, of course, a lot more complicated than it appears at first glance (not that TMZ is known for its Mensa-level readership).

(Post a new comment)

	pope_guilty 2008-05-29 02:11 am UTC (link)
	Damn, that is a tough one- I mean, I think the whole "OMG Harry Potter is EBIL!" thing is dumb, but at the same time, I imagine being asked to promote The Bell Curve. I'm not sure what I'd do. (Reply to this)

	lemon_says 2008-05-29 02:24 am UTC (link)
	Hm, by "push the books" onto kids, what exactly do they mean? If she was hiding them or refusing to let kids check them out, obviously she's the mofo. But if she's just not mentioning them to kids, I don't see where she did anything wrong because I wouldn't recommend shit like The DaVinci Code. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	misskerri 2008-05-29 03:29 am UTC (link)
	I was wondering about the phrase "push the books," as well. In my experience as a librarian, they require no "pushing" on my part! (Reply to this) (Parent)

misskerri
2008-05-29 03:36 am UTC (link)

OK. just read the link to the lawsuit filing...

The library was holding a "Harry Potter Night" outside of normal business hours. The plaintiff went to her superiors, including the library director, and explained that she could not participate, based on her religious beliefs. The director told her she would have to participate, even if it was 'behind the scenes.'

IF all that is true, well...I kind of think that the library director was in the wrong. Don't get me wrong; I find the idea of Harry Potter being evil/occultish to be absurd (of course, I'm an atheist, and used to practice Wicca, so there ya go), but in this case, I think the library assistant in question should have been allowed to back out of the program for religious reasons (if they were holding it on a Sunday morning, would they fire people who said they couldn't be at the program because they had to be at church?).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

quidditchgrrl
2008-05-29 04:43 am UTC (link)

I think you've hit on the crux of the issue - was this a "voluntary" program, or a required-attendance, everyone-must-be-at-work event?

If not all library staff were required to actively participate, then, IMHO, they (the library) are in hot water. If it was a program where ALL staff had to be at work, then it's a bit more gray area (like pharmacists who refuse to dispense certain drugs) on her part.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	lucifrix 2008-05-29 03:56 pm UTC (link)
	She was required to help out behind the scenes--do some work that would support the night (what I read the of the filing didn't specify). She would not do ANYTHING that supported the event. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	lemon_says 2008-05-29 01:45 pm UTC (link)
	Man, I hate to be on the side of someone who thinks HP is evil. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	littlenothing 2008-05-29 02:37 am UTC (link)
	This for me qualifies the same as pharmacists that don't want to give out contraceptives based on their morals and values... I'm not anti morals, but do your job, whether it be handing out the pill or Harry Potter, its a job, get it done or find alternative employment. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	badgermirlacca 2008-05-29 05:06 pm UTC (link)
	"Do your job" is one thing. Participating in an activity outside of hours is not the same thing--unless you feel your employer has the right to tell you what to do outside of work as well as during working hours. She's not an exempt employee. This was outside her job description, and she had the right to object. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

littlenothing
2008-05-29 05:36 pm UTC (link)

According to the document:

Plaintiff stated that she was willing to work in the library and perform her normal duties during the days leading up to Harry Potter Night, but she vehemently objected to participating in Harry Potter Night in any role, since doing so would violate her religious beliefs.

Which to me does imply she would not help prepare for this even in any capacity, including whatever would be done as her daily job tasks. If one of her job tasks is to fill holds, as the document states, does she have the right not to fill any holds for Harry Potter, to setting up a book display if needed, or even answering directional questions about the event?

Edited at 2008-05-29 05:37 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

badgermirlacca
2008-05-29 07:50 pm UTC (link)

I think you're reading more into this than is there. She says she's willing to perform her normal duties during the days leading up to the event. Surely preparing for Harry Potter Night does not mean all normal duties of the library are suspended, does it? She is specifically objecting to this event, as a violation of her religious beliefs. Since she was suspended, we do not know if her actions would have included refusing to set up the display or answering questions. Even if it did, a reasonable accomodation would have been to have her do other things which needed to be done in the library. If an event like this means that everything else in the library is thrown out the window, I think the library director has a whole lot more to answer for than this.

It is not necessary to force an employee to act against her religious beliefs when a reasonable accomodation can be made. Doing so is horrendously poor human resources management. The fact that many fundamentalist Christians have this view of Harry Potter and other supernatural/paranormal fiction is not something this woman just made up at random to get out of doing work which was outside of her regular work hours to begin with. If the Complaint is correct that she got good evaluations on her other work, then let her do that. Don't force her to do something against firmly held beliefs, and for heaven's sake don't be punitive when she stands firm.

If it is not possible to perform work in a public library which doesn't involve involvement with paranormal/supernatural fiction, then that must be a very strange library indeed (and I think I'd like to have a card there).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

rurounitriv
2008-05-29 03:50 am UTC (link)

Okay, I read through the actual papers, and I can see where this woman was coming from. I think she was overreacting, and the idea that Harry Potter promotes devil worship or is any more occult than the average fairy tale is stupid, but surely she could have been set to watch the desk or something while other staffers worked on the HP party - after all, someone has to be at the desk anyway, why not her? And reducing her hours, effectively demoting her from LA2 to a page/shelver, and forcing her to continue those duties after her doctor said that she wasn't physically capable was obviously punitive when she was the only one who was being treated that way. She definitely should have been pulled off that duty once she brought in the doctor's statement, and before she was pushed so hard she passed out at work.

Nothing in this says that she wasn't doing the job properly in every other aspect, that she was proselytizing on library time, or that she was trying to disrupt or sabotage the HP party (although since the papers filed are only presenting her side of the story it's entirely possible that she was already on thin ice with her employer, and this was the final straw.) In fact, her supervisor, when first approached on the subject, apparently stated that there wouldn't be a problem with them finding other duties that she could do while her coworkers were handling the preparations. It was the director who said that wasn't acceptable and who presumably reassigned her when she refused to participate in something against her religious convictions.

The ACLU is doing exactly what I would hope they would do if my employer demanded that I help to do something against my convictions, providing legal help for someone who appears to have been legitimately discriminated against for her religious beliefs. Which may be weird for me to say, given that I'm a Pagan and she's a fundamentalist Christian who would doubtless consider me hellbound, but... that's how I see it. I may change my mind when I see the evidence for the other side, but it looks to me like the director was the mofo here.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	lucifrix 2008-05-29 03:59 pm UTC (link)
	She said that she wouldn't even do behind-the-scenes work on it. That's where I wonder how this would've played out--what counts as "behind the scenes" in a situation like this? Even covering the desk while other people had planning meetings is a form of support. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	badgermirlacca 2008-05-29 05:08 pm UTC (link)
	The event was held outside of regular library operating hours. So "covering the desk" shouldn't have entered into it. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

rurounitriv
2008-05-29 05:31 pm UTC (link)

The event was - but preparing materials, organizing activities, and other pre-party activities would have been taking place during regular hours, would have taken staff involvement, would have required someone to cover for the employees who were working on the event, and would have constituted the bulk of the "behind-the-scenes" work.

As far as activities on the night itself, if they couldn't adjust their plans for one person being absent, they were overreaching themselves. And apparently, they were able to manage just fine on the night itself without her, as she was on suspension at the time.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	lucifrix 2008-05-29 08:09 pm UTC (link)
	I said "covering the desk while other people had planning meetings," and was thinking those meetings would be during normal library hours. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	badgermirlacca 2008-05-29 09:59 pm UTC (link)
	Okay, I see what you're saying. But covering the desk during regular working hours could also be construed as performing her regular duties, no matter what other people were doing at the time, so I doubt she'd have had a problem with it. The Complaint says she didn't want to work during the event itself, and I think it would be fair to interpret it that way. (Reply to this) (Parent)

rurounitriv
2008-05-29 05:24 pm UTC (link)

No, covering the desks is doing the job she's paid for. It doesn't constitute support, because it's part of her normal job duties - unless simply working for the library constitutes support, in which case WTF is she doing working for them at all? After all, libraries are full of books about magic and Satanism and evolution and all the rest of those things that make the Southern Baptists froth at the mouth.

I'll admit she was being irrational and unreasonable about the reason for the situation, but people are often irrational about their faith (although fundamentalists seem to raise that to an art form.) But unless it turns out that she was pulling the same stupid stuff as a former employee at our library system was and refusing to do a lot of other minor things, if I were that director I'd have just ordered her to cover for other people who were working on the project... which is what I suspect is how the supervisor expected it to play out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

betheliz
2008-05-29 07:03 am UTC (link)

Reading through the comments, it is an interesting case. If the worker offered to do other duties, for example while everyone else is working on the HP party, I'll cover extra desk times or storytimes so they have more free time to devote to HP, and made a good effort, than I don't think it should be a problem. If the librarian flat out refused to do this AND it was an all hands on deck situation, it might be a problem. You do get to stand on principle and refuse to go against your moral beliefs, but your employer also has a right to expect a comparable level of work from you. Without knowing more, it is hard to say what her legal standing is. Did she try to work out a compromise? Was she the only staff member not participating?

This week we had a request for a presentation at a Unitarian church. That does not jive with my beliefs and it conflicts with one of the Sundays that I'm scheduled to teach Sunday School classes at my church. So I just didn't volunteer and no one pushed it. (Sunday is also not a normal work day for me.) I don't know what I would have done if it had been insisted. Probably pointed out that I had other plans as that was not a normal work time. Fortunately not an issue.

(Reply to this)

	stinkycheez 2008-05-29 11:36 am UTC (link)
	Now let me think how I can use this lawsuit as the basis for refusing to "push" Triple Crown novels? (Reply to this)

	sternel 2008-05-29 01:45 pm UTC (link)
	I should very much like to see the reply filing from defendant, but my gut reaction is that all three of them are full of shit. (Reply to this)

	jackolantern 2008-05-29 01:46 pm UTC (link)
	TMZ is definitely a mofo for stamping its watermark on the PDF of the lawsuit. (Reply to this)

	sagamockingbird 2008-05-29 03:20 pm UTC (link)
	I'm willing to bet that it was an "all hands" event. Poplar Bluff only has a staff of 10 full and part time and according to the annual report there were over 100 people in attendance and 12 different activities for the kids at the Harry Potter event. Even with volunteer help I'm sure every person was needed. (Reply to this)

	alex51324 2008-05-29 04:01 pm UTC (link)
	Reading the documents, it certainly sounds like the director was punishing the plaintiff for holding a belief that she (the director) thought was stupid. I completely agree that the plaintiff's belief is stupid, but if it happened the way the plaintiff says it did, the director was way over the line. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	sternel 2008-05-29 06:34 pm UTC (link)
	It never happens the way the plaintiff said it did. It also never happens the way the defendant says it did. That's half the problem. (Reply to this) (Parent)

lucifrix
2008-05-29 04:13 pm UTC (link)

I don't feel comfortable saying for sure until more details come out, in particular what did she refuse to do (for instance, if she wouldn't do check-out or info-giving transactions regarding the HP books, then I'm totally OK with her being disciplined for it). Not knowing that, I wonder if it really had to go this far--was there REALLY no way to just put someone else on this or that task.

What makes me angry is that many people in conservative religious circles, despite copious evidence to the contrary, still insist the ACLU is anti-Christian.

(Reply to this)

badgermirlacca
2008-05-29 05:03 pm UTC (link)

Based on the contents of the Complaint, the library director is a first class jerk, the employee has solid grounds for a lawsuit, and is entitled to damages.

Now, my opinion may change once I read the Answer to the Complaint, but seriously, the woman did not want to work at an after-hours event because of her religious beliefs, and that should have been respected, as her immediate supervisor was willing to do. It's really unfortunate that this is being showcased as a "look at the stupid Christian" incident.

And I say this as someone who considers herself more Wiccan than anything else.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	rurounitriv 2008-05-29 05:33 pm UTC (link)
	IAWTC (Reply to this) (Parent)

nova_b
2008-05-30 02:02 am UTC (link)

One first read, I would have agreed that the director was/is a jerk. She certainly went way beyond her right as an employer, and caused undue hardship and a poison work environment to the LA.

But I also wonder how long had this been going on? Was it just the Harry Potter incident or are we simply hearing about the tip of the iceberg, and a director who was finally pushed to the limit?

If she objected that much to Harry Potter (of all things) than imagine how many other books she may have been constantly objecting to that the library owned. Something is telling me this is not an isolated incident with this particular employee.

The response, if we ever see it, should be interesting....

(Reply to this)

olddguyy
2008-05-31 01:33 am UTC (link)

I agree that all we have so far is the plaintiffs side of the story plus the 'look at the stupid Christian' media spin.

However ...
"18. Defendant Thomas informed Plaintiff that she would be required to help with Harry Potter Night in a behind-the-scenes role, but in a way that Plaintiff's church community would not know she had participated. Defendant Thomas told Plaintiff that hiding her participation from other church members should be sufficient to overcome any religious objection."

IMHO
ANYONE who deals with "any religious objection" by "that hiding her participation from other church members should be sufficient to overcome any religious objection" is way out of line.
I don't care if the objector tells me they follow the Great Pink Sea Snail and he disapproves. I'm not going to decide their problem is with the Snail Priests rather than the Snail himself unless THEY tell me so.

'It's OK as long as your church doesn't know; we both know your God is a myth.'
However this viewpoint is worded, that is what it boils down to - and that's arrogance of truly divine proportions.
Whenever I've met this view, I get furious, whatever the religion involved.

I may think your beliefs are false but I'm not arrogant enough to decide what about them bothers you.
And yes, this is a hot button of mine - how'd you guess? :)

(Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs