1. What would you have done if you were the employer who saw this news article? Why?

2. Does the court’s decision surprise you? Explain.

3. If you were the employer, what would you do if the employee mistreated non-white employees in the workplace?

Issue: Whether the employee’s religion which preached a system of beliefs whose central tenet was white supremacy is a religion which must be recognized by the employer.

Facts: Plaintiff/employee, Christopher Lee Peterson, is a follower of the World Church of the Creator, an organization that preaches a system of beliefs called Creativity, the central tenet of which is white supremacy. Creativity teaches that all people of color are “savage” and intent on “mongrelizing the White Race,” that African-Americans are subhuman and should be “shipped back to Africa”; that Jews control the nation and have instigated all wars in this century and should be driven from power, and that the Holocaust never occurred, but if it had occurred, Nazi Germany “would have done the world a tremendous favor.” Creativity considers itself to be a religion, but it does not espouse a belief in a God, afterlife or any sort of supreme being. “Frequently Asked Questions about CREATIVITY,” a publication available on the World Church of the Creator’s website, characterizes such beliefs as unsubstantiated “nonsense about angels and devils and gods and . . . silly spook craft” and rejects them in favor of “the Eternal Laws of Nature, about which [Creators say] the White Man does have an impressive fund of knowledge.” The White Man’s Bible, one of Creativity’s two central texts, offers a vision of a white supremacist utopian world of “beautiful, healthy [white] people,” free of disease, pollution, fear and hunger. This world can only be established through the degradation of all non-whites. Thus, Creativity teaches that Creators should live their lives according to the principle that what is good for white people is the ultimate good and what is bad for white people is the ultimate sin. According to The White Man’s Bible, the “survival” of white people must be ensured “at all costs.” Employee holds these beliefs and, in June 1998, became a “reverend” in the World Church of the Creator.

In 2000, employee was employed by employer Wilmur Communications, Inc. as a Day Room Manager, a position which entailed supervising eight other employees, three of whom were not white. On Sunday, March 19, 2000, an article appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel discussing the World Church of the Creator, interviewing employee, and describing his involvement in the church and beliefs. The article included a photograph of him holding a tee-shirt bearing a picture of Benjamin Smith, who, carrying a copy of The White Man’s Bible, had targeted African-American, Jewish and Asian people in a two-day shooting spree in Indiana and Illinois before shooting himself in the summer of 1999. The caption under the photograph read “Rev. C. Lee Peterson of Milwaukee holds a T-shirt commemorating Benjamin Smith, who killed two people and wounded nine others before shooting himself in a two-day spree last summer.”

When employee arrived at work the next day, his supervisor and the president of the company, Dan Murphy, suspended him without pay. Two days later, employee received a letter from Murphy demoting him to the position of “telephone solicitor,” a position with lower pay and no supervisory duties. During his six years of employment at Wilmur Communications, employee had been disciplined once for a data entry error but had never been disciplined for anything else.

Decision: Yes, this religious belief, though similar to the Ku Klux Klan’s beliefs, even though they may have beliefs in common with politics, and may seem immoral or unethical, meet the requirements of religion for Title VII purposes and must be taken as such.

A test has emerged to determine whether beliefs are a religion for purposes of Title VII. Rather than define religion according to its content, the test requires the court should find beliefs to be a religion if they “occupy the same place in the life of the [individual] as an orthodox belief in God holds in the life of one clearly qualified.” To satisfy this test, the employee must show that the belief at issue is “‘sincerely held’ and ‘religious’ in [his or her] own scheme of things.” In evaluating whether a belief meets this test, courts must give “great weight” to the employee’s own characterization of his or her beliefs as religious.

To be a religion under this test, a belief system need not have a concept of a God, Supreme Being, or afterlife. Courts also should not attempt to assess a belief’s “truth” or “validity”. So long as the belief is sincerely held and is religious in the employee’s scheme of things, the belief is religious regardless of whether it is “acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others.” Once an employee establishes that his or her beliefs are a religion, the employee must offer evidence that his or her religion “played a motivating role” in the adverse employment action at issue. An employee can meet this burden by presenting direct evidence of the employer’s discriminatory intent, the method that employee has chosen here, or by the indirect method.

Here, the first prong is undisputed. Employee states that he has “a sincere belief” in the teachings of Creativity and employer offers no contrary evidence. Thus, employee meets the first prong of the test.

The second prong is also undisputed. Employee considers his beliefs religious and considers Creativity to be his religion. I must give “great weight” to that belief. In addition, Creativity plays a central role in employee’s life. Employee has been a minister in the World Church of the Creator for more than three years.

Employee states that he “work[s] at putting [the teachings of Creativity] into practice every day.” Thus, all the evidence conclusively reveals that the teachings of Creativity are “religious” in employee’s “own scheme of things.” These beliefs occupy for employee a place in his life parallel to that held by a belief in God for believers in more mainstream theistic religions. Thus, Creativity “functions as” religion for employee. Employee has met his initial burden of showing that his beliefs constitute a “religion” for purposes of Title VII.

Employer argues that the World Church of the Creator cannot be a religion under Title VII because it is similar to other white supremacist organizations that have been found to be political organizations and not religions.

To be sure, Creativity shares some of the white supremacist beliefs of the KKK and the National Socialist White People’s Party. However, the fact that employee’s beliefs can be characterized as political does not mean they are not also religious. Thus, employee could share the beliefs of political organizations yet still establish that his beliefs function as religion for him.

Employer also argues that Creativity’s beliefs cannot be religious because they are immoral and unethical, and EEOC regulations define religious beliefs as “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong.” The EEOC regulation means that “religion” under Title VII includes belief systems which espouse notions of morality and ethics and supply a means from distinguishing right from wrong. Creativity has these characteristics. Creativity teaches that followers should live their lives according to what will best foster the advancement of white people and the denigration of all others. This precept, although simplistic and repugnant to the notions of equality that undergird the very non-discrimination statute at issue, is a means for determining right from wrong. Thus, employer’s argument must be rejected. Employee has shown that Creativity functions as religion in his life; thus, Creativity is for him a religion regardless of whether it espouses goodness or ill. Employer’s argument is again rejected.

Having established that Creativity is for employee a religion, the employee must offer evidence that his religion played a motivating role in the adverse employment action, in this case his demotion. Employee argues that Murphy’s letter of demotion provides direct evidence that he was demoted because of his religion. The letter of demotion from Murphy plainly states that employee was being demoted because of his membership in the World Church of the Creator and his white supremacist beliefs. Thus, employee’s beliefs caused employer to demote him and employer is, therefore, liable.