Craig James accuses FOX Sports of religious discrimination

[Blue_Tires]

Former Patriots running back Craig James, who lost his job commentating on college football for FOX Sports after just one week, now says he was the victim of religious discrimination, and he has hired a lawyer to do something about it.

James spent one week working for FOX Sports Southwest before FOX announced that he would not be back, citing anti-gay comments James had made. James now says those comments were expressions of his religious beliefs, and he says FOX’s statement about his termination was tantamount to a ban on religious people working at the network.

“I was shocked that my personal religious beliefs were not only the reason for Fox Sports firing me but I was completely floored when I read stories quoting Fox Sports representatives essentially saying that people of faith are banned from working at FOX Sports,” James told Breitbart.com. “That is not right and surely someone made a terrible mistake.”

James was a Pro Bowler in 1985 and had a successful broadcasting career at ESPN, which he left to run for the U.S. Senate in his home state of Texas. James finished a distant fourth in the Republican primary, with 4 percent of the vote. ESPN said during James’s Senate campaign that he would not be brought back, and other than that one week at FOX Sports Southwest, he has not found work in broadcasting since leaving ESPN.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/28/craig-james-accuses-fox-sports-of-religious-discrimination/

[LittleBlue]

1. He's a moron

Deserved what he got.

[truebrit71]

2. Dude, your belief in invisible cloud beings doesn't give you a 'Get out of Jail' card to be a bigot.

Fucking moran....

[Scuba]

19. +1

[yuiyoshida]

29. ...

+2

[Ohio Joe]

3. So... He is being discriminated against because he can't discriminate?

What a dumb fucker.

[joeybee12]

4. Nice to see most of the comments posted there know he's a tool...nt

[el_bryanto]

5. Seems like Fox Sports kind of went into this idiotically and he might have a case

During his campaign, James criticized another candidate for attending a gay pride parade, promised he would never do such a thing, and said that being gay is a choice and that gay people “are going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions.” ESPN confirmed shortly after James made those comments that James (who finished a distant fourth with 4 percent of the vote in the Republican primary) would not be welcome back at the network.

At the start of this college football season, FOX Sports Southwest announced that James would be one of its college football commentators. But a week later, James was out. And now FOX has confirmed that those anti-gay comments are the reason.

“We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department,” a FOX spokesman told the Dallas Morning News. “He couldn’t say those things here.”

Fox news should have vetted this guy before hiring him not afterwords; if they felt that we he did publically before getting this job was an issue than they shouldn't have hired him.

That's not to support James - just to say that Fox Sports should have done their homework.

Bryant

[tkmorris]

6. FOX SHOULD have done their homework, sure

I really don't see how that translates into this clown having a case though. He is a bigot and FOX has every right to can him for it, regardless of whether they should have known it prior to his hiring.

[el_bryanto]

8. They have a right to can him if he is bigoted on the job. Or if he makes bigoted statements

while working for Fox Sports implying that they support him.

But if the crux of the issue is stuff he said publicly before he was hired, than I think he might have a case. I'm not an expert in this, I have to admit. And its possible that his opinions were coming out in the job, in things said on the air or the way he treated his fellow employees, in which case he wouldn't have a case.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Do you think Fox has ever entered into a contract with on air talent in the

past? Of course they have. How many lawyers do you think work for Fox? I'd hesitate to guess. Do you think they might include language that says 'if you have history that could cause harm to the reputation of this company you have to divulge it'? Do you think that being openly bigoted against members of your audience as well as coworkers and the athletes you are supposed to report on might hinder the ability
to perform the job?

[el_bryanto]

16. If I remember correctly from our last conversation you like me to answer all of your questions.

Do you think Fox has ever entered into a contract with on air talent in the past? I'm pretty sure they have.

How many lawyers do you think work for Fox? Many Many

Do you think they might include language that says 'if you have history that could cause harm to the reputation of this company you have to divulge it'? It's public record. It would be one thing if he had said it at his or her church or in private - in that case he would need to divulge it. But making comments on the campaign trail is very public. In that case, there's probably an argument to be made that he could assume that Fox Sports was aware of his comments. And if they were aware of them, or they reasonably should have been aware of them, than he might have a case.

Do you think that being openly bigoted against members of your audience as well as coworkers and the athletes you are supposed to report on might hinder the ability to perform the job? It might and it might not; it depends on whether or not he expresses those views on the air or in the office. I think that if I chose to employ him (which I don't think I would) - I would keep a close eye on what he said or how he treated his coworkers, particularly Gay ones. And of course you monitor what he says on the air anyway.

I haven't seen any allegations that he has said anything bigoted while on the job; and I've looked. If such allegations come forward than his case gets a lot weaker. But as it stands now, I think he's got a case. That doesn't mean he should win or he will win, just that there seems to be enough info to justify going to trial.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Wow, James is so wildly dishonest in his claims. A liar and a bigot

he's probably a Double Plus Deacon in his churchy poo.

[Gothmog]

9. This will be fun to watch

James has pissed off most of west Texas and all of the Texas Tech fans in Texas.

[Capt. Obvious]

10. God works in mysterious ways

[Nye Bevan]

11. Well, to be fair Jesus Christ condemned homosexuality many times in the Gospels.

Oh wait. He actually never did. Not once. So there goes that rationale.

[el_bryanto]

12. Trying to find out more information on this case

Most of the articles are from Right Wing Screeds so ignoring them - there was a thoughtful piece in the Atlantic though that might be worth reading.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Thoughtful? All those words about fairness in employment yet the author

does not mention that gay people can be fired for being gay in 29 States because of people like James. He does not mention it because he does not know, he thinks it is all about 'marriage' and what he and his wife think.

[el_bryanto]

18. I found it thoughtful. Marriage is the main issue in peoples minds right now.

How many people were actually fired in the last few years for being Gay - I mean cases where that was the stated reason?

That's not to say that Gays don't suffer discrimination because obviously they do - just that i would think it would be at one remove - rather than saying "We are firing X because he's gay" they would say something like "We are firing X because he doesn't fit into our corporate culture."

Bryant

[Enrique]

20. he wasn't just a guy saying what he thinks

he is a politician running for office in Texas. I didn't hear about what James said, but the political context changes everything. I like Conor Friedersdorf a lot, but he's being disingenuous by taking this guy at face value, by defending him as just a guy with certain religious views. He's not, he's part of an agenda.

[el_bryanto]

21. Well that's a good point

But when he went back to Sports Commentating is he still part of the agenda? Or what sort of jobs should an ex- politician who has made Anti-Gay statements have?

Bryant

[Scurrilous]

14. @#$% him and the horse he rode in on. n/t

[geek tragedy]

17. Maybe he can cash a check from SMU like he did as a student athlete. nt

[hughee99]

22. If they are his PERSONAL religious beliefs, they should have remained PERSONAL.

Apparently they didn't, and FOX doesn't want someone who says stupid or offensive things representing them.

Wait, did I really just say that? The network that used to bring out Palin on a regular basis and gives Bill O'Reilly a place to call home has finally decided that it's bad PR to let fools, misogynists, bigots and homophobes represent them. Does anyone else find it odd that they don't want such people to represent them when it comes to sports, but have no problem with such people when it comes to politics or news?

[Xithras]

23. He's got a strong case, and Fox will probably settle for big $$.

They didn't fire him for comments he made on the air, in the workplace, or while he was employed by them.

The guy had run for Congress years earlier, and during his congressional run had stated that he couldn't support gay marriage because of his religious beliefs. When this was brought to Fox's attention, they fired him.

Like it or not, that's pretty cut and dried religious discrimination and he's got a big payday coming. Fox really f*'d up when they didn't vet this guy better beforehand. As it lays now, Fox has already admitted that they fired the guy for holding religious beliefs they disagree with, even though those beliefs weren't brought up in the workplace, AND those beliefs were public knowledge when he was hired. We may not agree with those beliefs, but federal law protects them...and him.

[stevenleser]

24. I doubt it, but I'll let one of DU's resident attorneys correct me if I am wrong.

Citing religious beliefs as justification for bigoted statements will not save your job, particularly if it is a high profile one like James'.

This is not new. People have used the bible and other religious texts as justification for being against inter-racial marriage, against Jews, etc. It doesn't work, at least not anymore. It doesn't protect you from being sued by people who claim you created a hostile environment/discriminated against them by making statements against people of color, or Jews, etc. It also doesn't protect you on the other side from terminations.

At most large organizations, terminations are routinely evaluated by HR and firm attorneys before being actioned. Looks like this one was too http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/09/craig-james-religious-descriminaion and http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/craig-james-anti-gay-stance-during-political-campaign-reason-for-his-quick-exit-from-fssw-college-football-duties.html/ and http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130902/craig-james-will-not-return-to-fox-sports-southwest/?mobile=no

[Xithras]

26. Except that he didn't make the statements in his workplace, or even while he worked for them.

They terminated him for holding an offensive religious belief that was never expressed within his workplace.

For example, Mormons believe that Baptism for the Dead washes away sins, and their belief system states that Adolph Hitler resides in Heaven along with most of the Jews he is responsible for murdering. They believe that Heaven is an actual, physical place, and that an actual, physical Adolph Hitler gets to interact with the people he killed on a regular basis.

Many Jews understandably find this bit of religious trivia offensive.

So...if a Jewish owned company hired an employee, who did nothing wrong during the course of his employment, could they later fire him if they discovered that he were Mormon? Can you fire an employee merely for holding religious beliefs that aren't expressed in the workplace?

James wasn't accused of making bigoted statements in the workplace or creating a hostile work environment. He wasn't even accused of making statements at the same time he was accused. He was fired for holding offensive religious beliefs that were expressed long before he was hired. That's a pretty fundamental legal difference, and it's why he'll win any case against Fox.

Don't get me wrong...I'm GLAD they fired the asshole, but he will win his suit and get his payday. And legally, he should. Fox f'd up, and now they'll be paying up.

[stevenleser]

28. The on or off the job doesn't matter in his situation.

You better believe you can fire a member of the KKK for their beliefs even if they never say a thing about any of their beliefs at work and if they swear up and down that their off work activities and beliefs are because of their religion.

They will not be successful in a wrongful termination suit.

[Xithras]

33. You can fire a member of the KKK because "raging arsehole" isn't a protected class.

According to the EEOC, however, religion IS a protected class. You're comparing apples and oranges.

According to the statements of some in this discussion, it would be perfectly fine for me to fire all of the Mormons, Muslims, and Jews who work for me, simply because I (as an atheist) find some of their religious beliefs to be offensive, racist, and demeaning. That's not the case, I assure you. No employer can terminate an employee over a genuinely held religious belief.

But don't take my word for it. Here's a direct quote from the EEOC itself:

Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

The ONLY way Fox can dodge a judgment is to prove undue hardship. They would have to prove, beyond question, that they could not have accommodated his religious beliefs without suffering severe hardship. Under EEOC rules, "customer preference" is also not a viable defense against discrimination claims. You can't hide a black employee in the back because white customers won't like him, and you can't fire a religious employee simply because people who don't share his religious views would object to him. Many employers have been (rightly) crucified over the years for trying exactly that. You cannot fire an employee simply because people would object to him.

Fox screwed up when they openly admitted that they fired him over his religious beliefs, and they'll have to pay up. You cannot discriminate against ANY employee simply because you disagree with their genuinely held religious beliefs...conservative, liberal, or otherwise. These cases typically don't go anywhere because it's usually impossible to prove that the termination was caused by discrimination against a federally protected class. In this case, he's got quotes and press statements by the networks leadership confirming that they fired him over his federally protected beliefs.

We may not like the "victim" here, but this case is pretty open and shut. Fox openly acknowledged the religious discrimination. It's was a mind-blowingly boneheaded move on their part.

[stevenleser]

35. This is not a religious issue, its a bigotry issue. Religion is the excuse, not the issue. nt

[Blue_Tires]

25. Doubtful...If it goes that far, Fox will happily tie up the case in court for years...

and I'm guessing James' money for attorney fees will run out before Fox's...But this case will probably be thrown out, I'd think..

Plenty of TV personalities have been kicked off the air because of something embarrassing or inflammatory done or said, even if it wasn't on "company time." For airtight legal defense, Fox can easily go with the "Public image" angle or the "We believe he would potentially treat other GLBT employees unfairly" -angle...

Besides, if Fox Sports is anything like ESPN, then they already have a full dossier of ALL potentially damaging/embarrassing/tawdry/etc. incidents previously unknown to the public, just waiting to get leaked to sportswriters...

[Politicalboi]

27. Maybe Craig needs to say that

To a 270 pound player who is gay.

[Orsino]

30. Sportscasting isn't wingnut welfare, James.

If you want to be a pottymouth, try Regular Fox News.

[kaiserhog]

31. Craig James was a part of the cheatingnest college football team in history

The SMU Muststangs.

[dembotoz]

32. can they both lose

[marmar]

34. What a moron.