Woman alleges she was fired for cohabitation
Virginia DeLeon
Staff writer
August 9, 2007
A former Huntwood Industries employee is suing the company, alleging she lost her job because her boss disapproved of the fact that she was an unmarried woman living with her boyfriend.
OH my! Watch out for locust falling from the sky. The end of the world is coming when you stop judging the personal lives of your employees. Doesn’t it say something in the bible (since the US is about 80% Christian I’m just assuming they follow some form of that bible) about casting the first stone – how does that one go again?
In a lawsuit recently filed in Spokane County Superior Court, Alisha Blimka, of Spokane, claims she was singled out almost two years ago because of her marital status and because she did not share her employers’ religious beliefs.
Huntwood President Tim Hunt said he had yet to see the lawsuit Wednesday, but stressed that his company would never mistreat its employees. “I can tell you emphatically that we don’t discriminate,” he said. “But it doesn’t keep people from wanting to sue us.”
You know uumm suing one’s employer isn’t exactly an everyday occurrence, especially when you only have 750 employees. Usually if someone is going to take that step – something happened and they have the documentation to prove it.
One of the Spokane area’s largest manufacturers, Huntwood Industries is a wood-manufacturing company with about 750 workers. Last fall, the Liberty Lake company laid off roughly 100 workers as a result of a national downturn in the wood products market.
Excuse me, but what does that have to do with the lawsuit? Last fall was 2006. This woman was fired in fall of 2005.
Blimka, who worked in Huntwood’s payroll department, lost her job on Oct. 17, 2005. According to the lawsuit, she received a “personnel action notice” signed by supervisor Darrick Hunt in March 2005 stating that she would be discharged “if not married by 12/31/05.” A copy of the notice was included in the court filings. Hunt is the son of Huntwood owners Tim and Resa Hunt.
Ahh the paper trail. Good girl for keeping that one!
“We believe that as set forth in the complaint, the allegations of religious discrimination and marital status discrimination — a violation of Washington state law — is supported not only by our client’s testimony but also by the personnel action notice,” said Kammi Mencke, Blimka’s attorney. “It is our understanding that (Huntwood owners) Tim and Resa Hunt have a religious belief that does not support two people who are unmarried living together. … We believe Huntwood’s religious beliefs conflicted with Alisha’s.”
Mencke declined to answer questions about Blimka’s faith, stating only that Blimka had recently received a raise and good evaluations before her job was terminated.
I don’t understand why we even need to know Blimka’s faith. This isn’t or shouldn’t be a case of who follows which religion and whose religion is the correct one. This is about not medaling in an employee’s private life. It’s not an employer’s job to make sure it’s employees are following what they deem a righteous path. Blimka might even follow the same religion as the company owners but not follow the rules as strictly.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with 14 or more employees from discriminating against individuals because of their religious beliefs or practices, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Employees cannot be forced to participate — or not participate — in a religious activity as a condition of employment,” according to the act.
Woo!
In the past, Tim and Resa Hunt have publicly stated the importance of faith in how they view their roles as company owners. “We feel the Lord has placed a blessing on this company and allowed us to have a vision for it,” Resa Hunt told the newspaper in February 2006.
Vision it however you’d like, but there are these pesky things called antidiscrimination laws. Your own bible says it’s not up to you to judge others (again I’m assuming they’re some variation of Christian).
According to the lawsuit, Blimka started working at Huntwood in July 2004 and was asked about her religious beliefs by Huntwood owners and managers during the course of her employment. Blimka had worked in the company’s small payroll department, Mencke said, and people knew she was living with her boyfriend. It wasn’t clear, however, what led to the personnel action notice.
Being asked about my beliefs by the owners and managers would have made bells and whistles go off in my head. Not that it’s her fault for answering I mean a little bit of personal life always comes out at work especially if you become friends with coworkers outside of work. It’s known at my job that I’m not married. I don’t wear a ring and I always refer to Kurt as my boyfriend. – That’s right I’m pregnant and not married. And I have no intention of getting married either! – DEAL WITH IT!
When asked about Blimka’s response to the notice and why she didn’t immediately report it to the EEOC, Mencke responded: “I’m not at liberty to answer that.”
Now that’s something I’d like to know, but it’s an ongoing case – yadda yadda
The complaint also lists former Huntwood administrative assistant, Tracy Schneiderman of Spokane, as a plaintiff in the case.
After learning about what happened to her co-worker, Schneiderman told her boss, Ron Schutz, about Blimka’s personnel action notice. She also called attention to the working conditions at Huntwood’s production floor, where her husband, Stephen, was working, according to the complaint. She told him that employees in the production department were working long hours during the summer and early fall of 2005 but were not receiving their meal and rest periods, according to the lawsuit.
Tracy Schneiderman, who started working at Huntwood in July 2004, also lost her job on Oct. 17, 2005 — a week after talking to her supervisor about Blimka’s notice, according to Mencke. Until then, Schneiderman had received raises and good evaluations from her supervisors, Mencke said. The lawsuit claims she was the victim of retaliation.
Oh I hope Schneiderman has some kind of written documentation about that conversation (an email would be fantastic because it’s date stamped and everything) otherwise her specific case looks pretty weak.
Both Blimka and Schneiderman were told that they were “let go based on a reduction in force,” Mencke said. It was unclear, however, how many others lost their jobs that day.
How can that be unclear? Doesn’t the company keep records?
Schneiderman’s husband, Stephen Schneiderman, also lost his job, Mencke said, but the attorney didn’t know the date when he was laid off.
Although it’s been almost two years since Blimka and Tracy Schneiderman lost their jobs at Huntwood, the women filed their lawsuit only last month because they were waiting for the state Human Rights Commission to finish its investigation.
The commission found there was “not sufficient evidence that an unfair practice has occurred,” according to Mencke. Her clients, however, are proceeding with the lawsuit because “the personnel action notice is pretty clear on its face that she was to be terminated because she wasn’t married,” she said.
How could the Human Rights Commission come to that conclusion? Unless they found that the company fairly fires all unmarried cohabiters and the people that question such a ridicules practice, and they totally missed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I mean the woman had a personnel action notice stating that if she wasn’t married by the end of the year she would be fired. How much more blantent can they be about it?
Related posts:
