8th Circuit – EEOC Argues Against Religious Discrimination Claim of Terminated Metalworker

[Stan]

Release from Thomas More Society Daniel Snyder v. Arconic, Corp., et. al(April 8, 2024 – St. Louis, Missouri) Fired metalworker Daniel Snyder’s attorneys from Thomas More Society will present oral arguments on April 9, 2024, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, against both the Biden Administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and...

View the full article

[Gregory Matthews]

So, let us look at this case on a bit deeper level:

*  The company is a private business that reports to its owners, whom I believe are probably stockholders.

*  As such, the company has the right to take a position on any public issue of it's choice, as long as the owners (stockholders) do not object to that position.

*  It is the owners (Stockholders) who are in the position of authority to object to any such position taken by the company and to remove from leadership position any person who takes a position that the owners disagree with.

*  No person has the right to remain employed by the company who is in opposition to the direction that the company is taking.

*  If I object to the consumption of alcoholic I do not have the right to be employed by a company that produces such.  I would not want to be employed by such.

*  I wonder why this employee wants to be employed by a company that supports something to which the employee strongly objects.

NOTE:  I am not suggesting that the employee has no legal rights in this case.  What I am saying is that I believe that the company also has some rights.