Man who sued over gay marriage question on bar exam apologizes - Page 3

cnredd · #21 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 12:31 AM

More on the Barber case...Don't like the source, but if someone can find something better have a blast...

The bolded parts can NOT be disputed though...

Quote:

Though the column in question was written and posted in December, it wasn’t until Jan. 31 that Barber was called into a meeting with two human resources officials, one of whom Barber says “slapped down” a printed copy of the column in front of him and asked if he had written it.

Recognizing the piece, Barber confirmed he had written it on his own time, at his home and on his own computer. Barber claims he was told, “Here at Allstate we have a very diverse community.”

Barber says the human resources assistant vice president told him the column didn’t reflect Allstate’s view and that he was suspended with pay. Barber was immediately ushered off company grounds – “which was humiliating,” the former employee said.

“I explained to Allstate that the article was a reflection of my personal Christian beliefs, and that I had every right to both write it and to have it published,” Barber told WND. “I further explained that I had written the article while at home on my own time, that I never mentioned Allstate’s name and that I neither directly nor indirectly suggested that Allstate shared my Christian beliefs or my views on same-sex marriage.”

Three days later, on Feb. 3, Barber, who had worked for Allstate for five years, says he got a call informing him he was fired “for writing the article,” he said. Now, with the help of the Christian Law Association and David Gibbs III, who represented Terri Schiavo’s family in the final weeks of her life, Barber is challenging Allstate in federal court.

According to an investigation by the state of Illinois’ Department of Employment Security related to Barber’s claim for unemployment benefits, an organization – likely a “gay”-rights group – complained to Allstate about the column. But how did the group connect Barber to the insurance company? It turns out one site that posted the column, MensNewsDaily.com, added to the bio line on the article the fact that Barber worked for Allstate.

Barber says he did not include that fact in the original column submission but that the site “disclosed that without my knowledge or consent.” According to Barber, he is somewhat well-known in the boxing field in Chicago, and Allstate would sometimes tout the fact that he worked for the company.

Barber stressed to the unemployment office that he did not intend for the affiliation to be included in the bio. Allstate argued to the agency that Barber should not be given unemployment, but upon investigation, the agency agreed with Barber’s contention and ruled he was entitled to the money.

Said the agency’s report: “The claimant was discharged from Allstate Insurance Company because an outside organization had complained about an article he had written while on his own time.”

The state agency also ruled Barber did not engage in misconduct, saying, “The term misconduct means the deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable rule or policy of the employer. … In this case, the claimant’s action which resulted in his discharge was not deliberate and willful.”

dabateman · #22 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

More on the Barber case...Don't like the source, but if someone can find something better have a blast...

The bolded parts can NOT be disputed though...

If your actions harm the relationship your company has with a client, then termination is reasonable. Was the group a client of AllState?

cnredd · #23 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

If your actions harm the relationship your company has with a client, then termination is reasonable. Was the group a client of AllState?

That's actually irrelevant due to AllState's position...

IF that was the case, all AllState had to do what SAY that was the case and then show it in trial as part of their defense...They didn't...

And it wouldn't work anyway for two reasons...

1) In any case involving homosexuality, if the company falls on the side of gays, they'll adversely affect their bottom line with Christians...if the company falls on the side of Christians, they'll adversely affect their bottom line with gays...

Nomatter what position they take that chooses a side, this dilemma comes into play, so of course, the correct position in to take NO position...

2) There is NOTHING in the article that represents the beliefs of the company, nor says it does...

And if individuals cannot speak their beliefs, then how could anyone ever get a job again knowing what you personally say can be used against you even if it has NOTHING to do with your career?...

That creates an atmosphere of "Nobody can say anything for fear of retribution elsewhere."...

Would you want that?...

dabateman · #24 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

That's actually irrelevant due to AllState's position...

IF that was the case, all AllState had to do what SAY that was the case and then show it in trial as part of their defense...They didn't...

And it wouldn't work anyway for two reasons...

1) In any case involving homosexuality, if the company falls on the side of gays, they'll adversely affect their bottom line with Christians...if the company falls on the side of Christians, they'll adversely affect their bottom line with gays...

Nomatter what position they take that chooses a side, this dilemma comes into play, so of course, the correct position in to take NO position...

2) There is NOTHING in the article that represents the beliefs of the company, nor says it does...

And if individuals cannot speak their beliefs, then how could anyone ever get a job again knowing what you personally say can be used against you even if it has NOTHING to do with your career?...

That creates an atmosphere of "Nobody can say anything for fear of retribution elsewhere."...

Would you want that?...

I think that people should fear for their jobs if they use company resources to effectively harm relations with a client. While that may not be the position the company has taken, it's a logical and reasonable position.

cnredd · #25 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

I think that people should fear for their jobs if they use company resources to effectively harm relations with a client. While that may not be the position the company has taken, it's a logical and reasonable position.

Only if through malicious intention or reasonable negligence...

And it depends on what you mean by "company resources"....

If the guy was using AllState facts or AllState's accounting or AllState's surveys to prove his point(s), that's a helluva lot different than using an AllState pen to write it...

dabateman · #26 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Only if through malicious intention or reasonable negligence...

And it depends on what you mean by "company resources"....

If the guy was using AllState facts or AllState's accounting or AllState's surveys to prove his point(s), that's a helluva lot different than using an AllState pen to write it...

Not really... it came out from an All-State email address. It's as if his views represent the company when he does that. Malicious or not, doing from an account that belongs to the company is reasonable negligence.

cnredd · #27 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

Not really... it came out from an All-State email address. It's as if his views represent the company when he does that. Malicious or not, doing from an account that belongs to the company is reasonable negligence.

No one would really believe that...

dabateman · #28 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

No one would really believe that...

People believe that sort of thing all the time. All kinds of groups. You have one person that sends out a pro-gay message from the wal-mart website and you've got 10,000 Christians up in arms.

No sane/reasonable person would believe that, but we aren't having problems with the sane/reasonable people are we?

cnredd · #29 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

People believe that sort of thing all the time. All kinds of groups. You have one person that sends out a pro-gay message from the wal-mart website and you've got 10,000 Christians up in arms.

No sane/reasonable person would believe that, but we aren't having problems with the sane/reasonable people are we?

There is NO public knowledge as to where the email was sent from...NONE...

It would be different if he ended it with "email me at JMB@allstate.com", but the knowledge of him being with AllState did not come from him...

In fact, part of his "outing" was AllState's fault...

According to the article, AllState has touted Barber's former occupation as a boxer...So if he ever says that he was a boxer himself, it's an obvious conclusion that J. Matt Barber the former boxer works for AllState...

You don't need to be a brain surgeon to figure it out, but he can't be held responsible for it...

dabateman · #30 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

There is NO public knowledge as to where the email was sent from...NONE...

It would be different if he ended it with "email me at JMB@allstate.com", but the knowledge of him being with AllState did not come from him...

In fact, part of his "outing" was AllState's fault...

According to the article, AllState has touted Barber's former occupation as a boxer...So if he ever says that he was a boxer himself, it's an obvious conclusion that J. Matt Barber the former boxer works for AllState...

You don't need to be a brain surgeon to figure it out, but he can't be held responsible for it...

But his emails do end in allstate.com. This isn't difficult. You get an email from someone and it has allstate.com as the domain, you expect it to be official business. And it should be. He violated that rule. He should be held responsible for sending information from his personal email to an outside source that could be misconstrued as a representation of the company.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/civil-rights/1843-man-who-sued-over-gay-marriage-question-bar-exam-apologizes.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Untitled document	This thread	Refback	05-04-2008 07:04 PM
Boston Legal » Blog Archive » Man who sued over gay marriage question on bar exam apologizes	This thread	Pingback	01-11-2008 12:28 AM