An interesting lawsuit has been filed against the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and CalTech after an employee was reportedly demoted and reprimanded for handing out DVDs at work.

David Coppedge sued JPL (pdf) claiming harassment and religious discrimination.  Coppedge had reportedly distributed copies of two DVDs that supported the concept of Intelligent Design to “interested” and “willing coworkers.”  The DVDs themselves make no reference to religion, though his supervisors reportedly said they “amounted to ‘pushing religion’ and were ‘unwelcome’ and ‘disruptive.'”  Coppedge notes that no one ever expressed those sentiments to him prior to his reprimand; he was told it was his responsibility to correctly “interpret a co-worker’s “body language.””  The written warning threatening termination that Coppedge received was reportedly withdrawn a year later and called “inappropriate” by the very people who issued it.  However, he did not regain the leadership position he lost.

JPL is technically run by CalTech; however, they operate it under federal funding.  Thus, the case has the potential of touching on government interaction with employee beliefs and peer interaction–which could influence the interaction of faith and the US military.  It is also interesting that while Coppedge is alleging religious discrimination, he says JPL perceived his viewpoint to be religious, not him.  According to the filing, since they were acting on the belief they were restricting religious expression, then they were discriminating on the basis of religion.

This may have an interesting application to faith in the US military.  The complaint does not indicate Coppedge misused his authority; instead, it appears his interactions were after work hours and in essentially peer relationships.  Military leadership has repeatedly emphasized that “restrictions” or “cautions” on associating religion with the military do not apply to “peer to peer” discussions.  The military has only been concerned with the misuse of authority, not casual conversations among similarly ranked individuals.

This case, however, may demonstrate an attempt by a government-supported agency to restrict even peer-to-peer discussions about religion.  This is not unforeseen, and is even supported by at least one outside organization.  For example, speaking about a military Chaplain’s sermon, Chris Rodda of the MRFF recently said

On the one hand, evangelizing is part of the Christian faith, so the chaplain has the right to talk about it in a worship service, but on the other hand, the chaplain’s military congregation does not have the right do what the chaplain is encouraging them to do — evangelize in the military workplace.

Rodda is wrong.  Outside of positions of authority, military men and women can share their ideological beliefs with their peers, even “in the military workplace.”  The original Air Force guidelines on religion specifically said

Nothing in this guidance should be understood to limit voluntary, peer to peer discussions.

The updated guidelines expanded on this, saying

Nothing in this guidance should be understood to limit the substance of voluntary discussions of religion, or the exercise of free speech, where it is reasonably clear that the discussions are personal, not official, and they can be reasonably free of the potential for, or appearance of, coercion.

Still, Rodda — representing a “religious freedom” group — claims that such discussions are not permitted.  She provides no support for her incorrect assertion.

If Coppedge’s case remains one of voluntary discussions separate from authority, it has the potential to impact even casual conversation in the military on topics of religion.

Also noted at the Religion Clause.