Case Analysis Paper

Your responses should be well-rounded and analytical and should not just provide a conclusion or an opinion without explaining the reason for the choice. For full credit, you must use the material from the textbook by using APA citations with page numbers when responding to the questions.

Utilize the case format below.

• Case: (Identify the name of the case and page number in the textbook.)
• Parties: (Identify the plaintiff and the defendant.)
• Facts: (Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case.)
• Issue: (Note the central question or questions on which the case turns.)
• Applicable Law(s): (Identify the applicable laws.) Use the textbook here by using citations. The law should come from the same chapter as the case. Be sure to use citations from the textbook including page numbers.
• Holding: (How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?)
• Reasoning: (Explain the logic that supported the court's decision.)
• Case Questions: (Explain the logic that supported the court's decision.) Dedicate one subheading to each of the case questions immediately following the case. First, fully state the question from the book and then fully answer.
• Conclusion: (This should summarize the key aspects of the decision and also your recommendations on the court's ruling.)
• Include citations and a reference page with your sources for all of the cases. Use APA-style citations with page numbers and references.

Reflection: (Include a reflection section.) This should cover all of the work in this course. Students must address specific cases or concepts with citations. This section should not be shallow but show some deep reflective thought to receive full credit.

Chapter 10 Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband, LLC, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. Colo. 2004)

Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband, LLC, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. Colo. 2004)

Employee was terminated for refusing to sign a workplace document containing language that he would value diversity, under the employers diversity policy. His refusal was based on his religion rejecting homosexuality. The employee sued the employer for terminating him without trying to reasonably accommodate the employees religious belief or practice. The court sided with the employee.

Krieger, J.

***

Buonanno is a Christian who believes that the Bible is divinely inspired. He attempts to live his life in accordance with its literal language. Because the Bible requires that he treat others as he would like to be treated, Buonanno values and respects all other AT&T employees as individuals. He never has nor would he discriminate against another employee due to differences in belief, behavior, background, or other attribute. However, his religious beliefs prohibit him from approving, endorsing, or esteeming behavior or values that are repudiated by Scripture.

In January 2001, AT&T promoted a new Employee Handbook that addressed How We Work: Employee Guidelines and Doing Whats Right: Business Integrity & Ethics Policies. AT&T maintains a Certification Policy, which provides that each AT&T Broadband employee must sign and return the Acknowledgment of Receipt and Certificate of Understanding form indicating that you have received a copy of the handbook and the AT&T Code of Conduct and that you will abide by our employment policies and practices. The parties agree that one of the employment policies and practices to which Buonanno was required to adhere is AT&Ts Diversity Policy. The Handbook, however, does not contain a single policy clearly denoted as such; instead, it contains numerous references in various locations to AT&Ts philosophy and goals with regard to diversity in the workplace. The parties references to a Diversity Policy appear to be primarily referring to a section of the Handbook entitled A Summary of Our Business Philosophy, a subsection of which is entitled Diversity. It reads as follows:

The company places tremendous value on the fresh, innovative ideas and variety of perspectives that come from a diverse workplace. Diversity is necessary for a competitive business advantageand the company is competing for customers in an increasingly diverse marketplace. To make diversity work to our advantage, its our goal to build an environment that:

Respects and values individual differences.

Reflects the communities we serve.

Promotes employee involvement in decision making.

Encourages innovation and differing perspectives in problem solving.

Allows our diverse employee population to contribute richly to our growth.

We want to create a team that is diverse, committed and the most talented in America. To that end, AT&T Broadband has a zero tolerance policy toward any type of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in our company. Each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to page 572fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us. This is demonstrated in the way we communicate and interact with our customers, suppliers and each other every day.

There was no uniform understanding at AT&T as to what comprised the companys Diversity Policy, or, more importantly, what an employee was required to do or not do to comply with it. Buonanno questioned the meaning of the third sentence in the second paragraph of the Diversity Philosophy, which reads Each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us. (The Court will hereinafter refer to this phrase as the challenged language.) He believed that some behavior and beliefs were deemed sinful by Scripture, and thus, that he could not valuethat is hold in esteem or ascribe worth tosuch behavior or beliefs without compromising his own religious beliefs. Buonanno was fully prepared to comply with the principles underlying the Diversity Philosophy; he recognized that individuals have differing beliefs and behaviors and he would not discriminate against or harass any person based on that persons differing beliefs or behaviors. However, he could not comply with the challenged language insofar as it apparently required him to value the particular belief or behavior that was repudiated by Scripture. Accordingly, if the challenged language literally required him to do so, he could not sign the Certificate of Understanding, agreeing to abide by such language.

No AT&T representative explored or explained the intended meaning (or any of the various interpretations) of the challenged language to Buonanno. No AT&T employee inquired as to the particulars of Buonannos concerns, sought to devise ways to accommodate Buonannos religious beliefs, or reassured him that the challenged language did not require him to surrender his religious beliefs. At all relevant times, Buonanno was presented with a choice between accepting the language of the Handbook without any additional clarification and signing the Certificate, or losing his employment.

AT&Ts Diversity Philosophy reflects a legitimate and laudable business goal. The Court accepts AT&Ts contention that allowing employees to strike piecemeal portions of the Handbook or Certification could pose an undue hardship on its business, making uniform application of company policies much more difficult. Nevertheless, had AT&T gathered more information about Buonannos concerns before terminating his employment, it may have discovered that the perceived conflict between his beliefs and AT&Ts policy was not an actual conflict at all, or that if a true conflict existed, it was possible to relieve that conflict with a reasonable accommodation.

Had [Human Resources Manager] Batliner sought more details about Buonannos concerns, rather than steadfastly insisting that he had to agree with the ambiguous Diversity Policy to retain his job, she would have discovered that, but for the challenged language, Buonanno agreed with the entirety of the Handbook, including the Diversity Philosophy, the non-discrimination policy, and all other aspects of AT&Ts policies and practices. His only objection was to a literal interpretation of the challenged language that required him to value particular behavior and beliefs of co-workers. Had Batliner followed [vice president of Human Resources for Colorado operations] Davis instructions and engaged in a conversation through which she gathered information about Buonannos concerns, based on her interpretation of the challenged language, she would have discovered no actual conflict between the challenged language and Buonannos religion. If Batliner had, as directed, reported these findings back to Davis, based on Davis interpretation of the challenged language, Buonannos religious beliefs would not have been in conflict with the challenged language. Had Batliner reported this information to [Senior Vice President for Human Resources] Brunick, he would have observed that, like the Jewish employee who must recognizebut not adoptthe differing beliefs of his Muslim co-worker, the challenged language did not require Buonanno to actually value the particular conduct of his co-workers that he considered sinful. Had [Director of Employee Relations] Wilson been consulted, Buonannos promise to recognize that there were differences between what he believed and did and what his co-workers believed and did and to treat everyone with respect regardless of their beliefs and behavior would have been sufficient to accomplish the goals of the challenged language. Had Batliner, Davis, Brunick, or Wilson ever explained that they understood the challenged language to have a figurative, rather than literal, meaning and listened to his concerns, the issue could have been resolved without any need for accommodation. Accordingly, AT&T has failed to show that it could not have accommodated Buonannos beliefs without undue hardship.

Even assuming thatdespite the testimony of Batliner, Davis, and, at times, Brunick and WilsonAT&T intended that the challenged language be applied literally and that all employees were affirmatively required page 573to ascribe value in the various beliefs and behaviors of their co-workers, AT&T could nevertheless have accommodated Buonanno without suffering undue hardship. Although AT&Ts Diversity Philosophy confers a business advantage, AT&T did not show that the literal application of the challenged language was necessary to obtain such advantage. For example, Wilson explained the advantages conferred by the Diversity Policy by relating an anecdote in which homosexual employees at American Express, sensing a need for estate-planning services in the homosexual community, proposed the creation of a successful new targeted product. In such example, no employee at American Express was required to ascribe any value to the practice of homosexuality in order to capitalize on the opportunity. Rather, American Express officials simply recognized that homosexual employees had a unique perspective on ways to market the companys product. Thus, as Wilson admitted, a minor revision of the challenged language, requiring all employees company-wide to fully recognize, respect and value that there are differences among all of us would have accomplished [AT&Ts] goals as set forth in the Diversity Philosophy, without imposing any apparent hardship on AT&T. Whether such a change is characterized as clarifying AT&Ts interpretation of the existing Handbook language or a reasonable accommodation for Buonanno is irrelevant.

AT&T violated Title VII by failing to engage in the required dialogue with Buonanno upon notice of his concerns and by failing to clarify the challenged language to reasonably accommodate Buonannos religious beliefs. Accordingly, Buonanno is entitled to damages.