Federal court says Walmart can fire anti-gay worker

In an unsigned summary judgment, the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Chicago has ruled that Walmart was within its rights when it fired an employee in Joliet who harassed a fellow employee because she was lesbian.

Tanisha Matthews was fired from her job at the Joliet store after a three-month investigation by Walmart that began in September 2005 when Matthews berated her lesbian co-worker, telling her she would "go to hell" because God disapproves of homosexuality.

The lesbian employee, identified in court documents as Amy, said that during a break Matthews began "screaming over her" that gay people should not "be on Earth" and are not "right in the head." Five other employees told Walmart during its investigation that they witnessed the tirade, confirming that Matthews told Amy gays are sinners and would go to hell.

Walmart fired Matthews for violating the company's policy against harassment, which prohibits "engaging in conduct that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment based on an individual's status, including sexual orientation."

Matthews claimed that Walmart was guilty of religious discrimination because her beliefs about gays are an integral part of her Apostolic Christian faith. Because Walmart took no disciplinary action against other employees who were present during the incident, Matthews claimed she was singled out for her religious beliefs.

The three-judge 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel didn't buy it.

"On appeal Matthews first argues under the direct method of proof that Wal-Mart engaged in religious discrimination by firing her for expressing her religious beliefs," the court stated. "But if Matthews is arguing that Wal-Mart must permit her to admonish gays at work to accommodate her religion, the claim fails."

Walmart fired Matthews because she harassed a co-worker, the court found, not because of her religious beliefs. Walmart does not have to accommodate every religious belief held by its employees, the court said, if doing so would create "an undue hardship."

"In this case, such an accommodation could place Wal-Mart on the 'razor's edge' of liability by exposing it to claims of permitting workplace harassment," the ruling said.

The court dismissed Matthews claim that she was treated more harshly than other employees.

"Matthews admits that none of the other employees involved in the conversation commented about 'someone's individual status, homosexuality or race,' and there is no evidence in the record that other Wal-Mart employees have violated the harassment policy and not been fired," the court said.

Matthews also cited a finding by the Illinois Department of Employment Security that her conduct in the incident did not make her ineligible for unemployment benefits, but the appeals court dismissed that finding as irrelevant to this case.

Finally, Matthews argued that the initial ruling against her in U.S. District Court should be overturned because her attorney in that case "provided ineffective assistance and sabotaged her case." But the appeals court rejected that out of hand.

"Matthews' remedy for counsel's allegedly negligent behavior is a malpractice action, not another shot at a trial against Wal-Mart," the court ruled.

The summary judgment was issued by Judges William J. Bauer, Richard A. Posner and Ann Claire Williams. Matthews had previously dropped a claim that her termination also constituted racial discrimination.

Ed. note: Walmart is the common spelling for the Arkansas-based retailer, used by the company itself in press releases and signage. Wal-Mart is the spelling used in the court opinion because it is the formal legal name used in court documents.