Religious Content in e-mail

pk · March 2005

Hi, All - I am an HR person in a department of a public university. I have seen similar topics, but not this one specific, and would like your wisdom.

We have an accounting person who sends out e-mails with this in her signature. "Jesus came to make God's love visible."

We have a manager who complains about it, regularly claiming the old church and state argument and saying that she is using university computers ("state owned") to distribute religious content. He is also greatly concerned about "offending."

My contention is that we have no campus policy that restricts e-mail signatures. Therefore, she has the same rights as everyone else to quote someone or something in her signature. People often quote famous political figures, TV lines, you name it. The fact that this happens to be a religious statement is irrelevant.

I've read the "10 Commandments" thing on Religious Discrimination and actually intend to read it a little more thoroughly when I get a chance.

Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? I'd really like to resolve this without too much of a battle.

Thanks to all - and wow - what a lovely day we're having!

twochr · March 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-23-05 AT 10:46AM (CST)[/font][br][br]I think that what you said about others using famous quotes, etc., in their email signatures means that you should not restrict her signature unless you restrict theirs also. You said you do not have a policy restricting the siguatures. And if someone says, well, that isn't a quote, that is just her putting her thought on there, then tell her to use a quote which says much the same thing "For God so loved the world..." John 3:16. Otherwise, you should not be able to restrict her if you don't restrict everyone from their quotations. We have people who do the same thing in our company and we do not restrict them. If someone is offended by it, they do not have to look at the signature. I'll be interested to see what Don and some of the others say who know more about it than I do. I'm just using logic here.

marc · March 2005

Welcome to the forum.

It's just a little bitty signature line, what harm can it do? You hear this kind of logic from all sides - but once you get on the slippery slope there is no stopping until you hit bottom.

You may need to just get very tight with respect to your technology usage protocols, including email. At the bottom of all of this is a tool to be used to conduct the business of the university. It is not a tool to spread political ideas, religious thoughts, sexually suggestive thoughts, racial discrimination axioms and the like. Once you allow one persons personal viewpoint, then where do you draw the line? I say you adopt a signature protocol policy that only allows name, title, etc. and call it a day.

If people want freedom of speech, let them use their own equipment, email systems, and internet connections, or go to the library.

ray a · March 2005

My penny's worth of thought: she is not trying to establish a church, nor is she promoting a church, so the so-called separation of church and state does not apply to this situation. Very simply, the purpose of the concept of separation of church and state is to avoid having the Church of the United States like Great Britain has the Church of England or Anglican church. If others are free to use whatever quote they desire in their signatures then she should be granted the same right. I wonder if some of the other signatures may make Muslim statements or anti-religious statements without any complaints being filed against them. And being a public university I would be surprised if there were not some signatures used that may be offensive to a Christian. Either allow this woman's signature or ban all signature statements.

BTW, don't brag about you weather - we're supposed to get up to 5 inches of snow in NY. x;-)

Don D · March 2005

I agree with Marc. The same would hold true if the receptionist had a plaque propped up on her desk which read, "Jesus died for your sins. Have a blessed day." I don't care that it's her personal opinion and daily reminder of her faith. The desk and workspace belong to a company and personal expressions like that should not be sitting on a desk, hanging on the wall or at the bottom of an email.

P.S: Is someone up there calling me illogical? I think what I read was, "I'm using logic but I'll look to see what Don says." Maybe my day to be paranoid.

ray a · March 2005

Yep I read that too, Don. I think twochr is quite perceptive in inferring you are illogical.

twochr · March 2005

You are just paranoid. Smart, but paranoid.

Whatever · March 2005

You need a policy now. These computers are not owned by the individual by the university. Ergo, the ees have no right to use the computer for their personal messages.
Second, the fact that it is a religious statement is not irrelevant. What if this ee in answer to a question stated that the University does not discriminate against anyone based on their religious or non-religious beliefs and the next sentence is their statement about Jesus. Think how that would be interpreted. Speaking as a Jew, I get that on a letter or e-mail from a public university, I would be offended and even more so angry that my tax money is going to support a "religious" institution. This is exactly how lawsuits come about.

pk · March 2005

The reason that I say that the fact that it's a religious statement is irrelevant is that it is one of many potentially offensive possibilities. Let's say, for instance, her signature was a line about gay pride - Different people being offended differently.

Besides, being on a college campus, there are people who get offended by every darned thing and others who think that they can say and do pretty much what they want.

Whatever · March 2005

I understand. But, I believe, that employees (who in the end are representatives of the employer)have no right to make a statement that is potentially offensive or advocates a particular religion or belief in their e-mails or letters). Think about what is currently happening at Harvard because of the statements of it's president.

Colleges are supposed to be open to the exchange of ideas. Fact of the matter is that students are subject to different rules than employees. This ee, as all ees, is using property that does not belong to them. Therefore, to say that no ee can sign off with a statement is entirely reasonable.

Welcome to the forum.

awilliams · March 2005

There are several cases on this point exactly. Search in the subscribers area for "blessed day," and you should pull up an article about one of the major cases on point. Also, the HR Special Report on religion devotes a substantial section to this topic as well. You can download that report on this website.

Anne Williams
Attorney Editor
M. Lee Smith Publishers, LLC

TN HR · March 2005

Put a stop to it immediately, no if's and's or but's. The minute you allow people to propagate this sort of stuff in the workplace, you open the door to bigger and better things. What's next? Email signatures with "You can't be both catholic and pro choice" (I used that one because I actually ordered that sticker removed from a cubicle recently).

Gene

Crout · March 2005

It's not "her" signature in the same sense that she could sign her name to a Christmas card and write anything she wants. The entire email.... signature and all...is company property, and so the company (university) can establish and enforce guidelines as to it's usage. In my personal view she's proselytizing, but that's your call. We have some folks here who add the phrase "have a blessed day" to the end of their voicemail, and that's just innocuous enough to be okay. Making a statement like the one your employee wrote would probably be an issue for us.

pk · March 2005

I know we need a policy, and I agree that her work e-mail is no place for her personal views/beliefs, etc. However, in absence of a policy (for the moment) couldn't she make a case that she is, in fact, being discriminated against?

ray a · March 2005

Absolutely if you just single her out and allow other controversial signatures.

System · March 2005

Of course it's discriminatory but she has no basis for a claim, unless she is subject to an adverse employment decision. Suppose we allow her signature but disallow a signature like "The South shall rise again!" There is no protected class for geographical location, but that would be a discriminatory decision.

I say you can tell her to change it and work on a policy.

HRinNH · March 2005

Our company has left no room for offense by dictating what our signatures can contain and even the font and size.

I received an e-mail yesterday from a vendor with the signature containing this little gem of wisdom: "The secret to enjoying your job is to have a hobby that's even worse".

Cheryl

szemcumo · March 2005

I would limit signatures to nothing more than (ie) Best regards, ee name and company info. There is no need to be cutesy, political or anything other than letting the recepient of the mail know whom it came from. Business email should be treated as such. JMHO!

Religious Content in e-mail

Comments