> CEO Michael Crandell contacted Mr. Scharf to inquire why he had not used the requested pronouns in the interview notes; Mr. Scharf explained that to do so would violate his religious convictions.
this seems more likely to be the real reason for the firing, rather than anything he listed in his own Slack profile. (though the Slack shenanigans probably helped show a pattern of behavior)
it sounds like he interviewed a candidate who was either transgender or non-binary, and intentionally misgendered the candidate in the interview notes.
that's a hostile work environment lawsuit waiting to happen, especially if he as a VP would have been in the management chain of that prospective employee, and would have continued the misgendering once they were hired.
if I have a religious belief that sexual harassment is totally fine, that belief does not give me free reign to commit sexual harassment and expose my employer to lawsuits. you'd think someone at the VP level would understand that.
> that's a hostile work environment lawsuit waiting to happen
If it could be won. It takes extremes for an effective lawsuit. Now they have a religious discrimination lawsuit. What is more likely is that this promotes a work environment that drives certain people away, which is something else his boss wouldn't want, and would have reason to fire him over.
As someone with OCD the fact that others tolerate my continuing use of a mask still doesn't make me comfortable when they refrain from using masks around me.
> Scharf, in internal writings, did not use the “preferred pronoun” of a potential employee.
Sounds like "Assigned by God" didn't respect the religious freedom of others, and was probably fired for creating a hostile work environment.
The suit is saying that Bitwarden, by asking an individual to confirm their pronouns, tried to compel speak that went against "Assigned by God's" religion. Unless an individual's religion doesn't have pronouns and renounces them, I really don't see how that infringes on freedom of religion.
I'm of two minds on this. The protection of religious liberties in the workplace is from federal and state laws. Corporations have been ruled "people" with respect to the first amendment's speech protections. A state or federal law compelling corporate speech (by allowing an executive of a corporation to contradict the corporations chosen speech, within the corporation, not pertaining to protected speech outside of the corporation) seems to be preempted by the constitution here (as interpreted by the Supreme court).
You could have been generous and interpreted my use of the word "people" to signal a collective type of persons. But sure, IANAL, or a legislator, and make grammatical mistakes here and there, and am using the words colloquially.
As a vegetarian, if I was ordered by a boss to cook (not eat) meat for a work event, I would likewise object, and refuse to yield my vegetarian beliefs to good host ideology.
Muslims successfully sued grocery stores for having to handle products which are prohibited to Muslims, and the courts instructed their employers that the reasonable accommodation must be made to allow them to work in a place where they wouldn't have to handle such products.
this is more like your boss ordering lunch for a team, and sending a form with options for meat, vegetarian or other. but rather than selecting vegetarian, you select other and put in a screed about how eating animals is wrong.
If he had refused to put pronouns entirely he probably would have been fired anyway. By doing it this way he at least has a shot of a religious discrimination suit.
I don't think he does, because his religious beliefs are accommodated: as a Catholic who believes God created him as male, he can select "he/him." The pronouns he uses were listed there for him to pick. The form didn't ask him to elaborate; he chose to. He was protesting the existence of the question because it gave other people an option he personally chose not to exercise - protesting that option is like protesting having pork as one of several options for team lunch, vs. just choosing not to have the pork.
They literally did not. If I ask you your height, are you choosing your height?
But I don't actually want to continue this conversation with you. I appreciate your point of you, I just do not agree with it in any capacity. Best of luck and have a good day.
I think for a lot of people stating their pronouns is seen as an act of solidarity with people who use pronouns other than those they were assigned at birth. I think there is a possibility that for Mr Sharf, being asked to state his pronouns too felt for him like he was being asked to show solidarity with a way of thinking that opposed his religious beliefs.
wait... he put "assigned by god" but then states that "god created man is his image and assigned them male and female" so why not just male? There is something else to this...
It's of the form "Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer only yes or no."
To be as brief as possible the typical objections to doing something like that are that it directly supports the societal changes that see the use of pronouns as a personal preference of the referent, and indirectly signals to others that may likewise object that he doesn't object when he actually does (i.e. that they're in a smaller minority than they actually are) or they should go along regardless.
This is just a massive strawman. The question your crafted makes a strong negative implication about the respondent.
Asking what's your name, your pronouns, etc have weak implications. Most people have names and prefer certain pronouns. That's the beginning and the end of the implication. Catholics do have pronouns, they just believe in the standard he/him, she/her and that those pronouns correlate with genital from birth.
Some people have gender neutral names and, like sarcasm, gender identity doesn't convey well in text based communications- in this suit, Slack.
Confirming up front rather than in request-response, error-correction type exchanges saves some time and some feelings. It doesn't infringe on religious freedom, as it's simply asking for clarification so others may respect your beliefs. At the same time, you can believe one thing, and respect the beliefs of others and use their name/pronouns when speaking to/of them.
> Confirming up front rather than in request-response, error-correction type exchanges saves some time and some feelings.
This is also useful in multinational companies. We have hires in other countries, and other cultures, and without reference, I find myself referring to them as they/them... same with some names that could be either Male or Female (Jack springs to mind).
this seems more likely to be the real reason for the firing, rather than anything he listed in his own Slack profile. (though the Slack shenanigans probably helped show a pattern of behavior)
it sounds like he interviewed a candidate who was either transgender or non-binary, and intentionally misgendered the candidate in the interview notes.
that's a hostile work environment lawsuit waiting to happen, especially if he as a VP would have been in the management chain of that prospective employee, and would have continued the misgendering once they were hired.
if I have a religious belief that sexual harassment is totally fine, that belief does not give me free reign to commit sexual harassment and expose my employer to lawsuits. you'd think someone at the VP level would understand that.