Judge issues preliminary ruling against Coppedge

[Tiggy]

You guys remember David Coppedge, the Intelligent Design Creationist who got fired from JPL for being an incompetent proselytizing git then sued them for wrongful termination? The judge in the case has issued a preliminary ruling agreeing with NASA that the firing was justified based on Coppedge's unprofessional behavior and not due to any religious discrimination.

Judge: Employee Not Let Go Over Intelligent Design

A former computer specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory was not dismissed because he advocated his belief in intelligent design while at work, a Superior Court judge has tentatively ruled.

Judge Ernest Hiroshige said Thursday he is leaning in favor of JPL's argument that David Coppedge instead was let go because he was combative and did not keep his skills sharp.

Hiroshige, who presided over the lawsuit's trial in April, ordered a final ruling to that effect be drawn up and distributed within 30 days.

In his wrongful termination suit, Coppedge claimed he was demoted in 2009, then let go for engaging his co-workers in conversations about intelligent design and for handing out DVDs on the topic while at work. Intelligent design is the belief that life is too complex to have developed through evolution alone.

JPL attorney Cameron Fox, however, contended Coppedge was a stubborn and disconnected employee who decided not to heed warnings to get additional training, even when it became clear the Cassini mission would be downsized and computer specialist positions eliminated.

Coppedge often was confrontational and insensitive to customers and colleagues, who had complained about his behavior and his advocacy of intelligent design, Fox said.

AP story

You can just hear the Discovery Institute getting ready to cry us a river about this one now. I wonder if Dembski will make a "farting Judge Hiroshige" animation?

- T

[Roy]

You guys remember David Coppedge, the Intelligent Design Creationist who got fired from JPL for being an incompetent proselytizing git then sued them for wrongful termination? The judge in the case has issued a preliminary ruling agreeing with NASA that the firing was justified based on Coppedge's unprofessional behavior and not due to any religious discrimination.

Can't say I'm surprised. Having read the court submissions it was clear that David Coppedge was released because he had less relevant skills at a time his department was reduced.

Roy

[phank]

I personally doubt that the issue was so cut and dried. Even JPL's lawyer admits that Coppedge "was confrontational and insensitive to customers and colleagues, who had complained about his behavior." I should hope that these reasons would be sufficient to fire anyone, regardless of their technical skill levels. If we're getting to the point where competent but annoying and disruptive religious wingdings simply cannot be fired for fear of being accused of religious discrimination, we're in trouble.

And this being the case, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Coppedge's technical skills were sufficient so that if he'd been easy-going, sociable, and well behaved he'd have stayed on without any difficulty. In my working world, you can be a wizard programmer and you'll STILL be found not quite good enough at it if you are a troublemaker thumbing your nose at the boss.

[oxmixmudd]

I personally doubt that the issue was so cut and dried. Even JPL's lawyer admits that Coppedge "was confrontational and insensitive to customers and colleagues, who had complained about his behavior." I should hope that these reasons would be sufficient to fire anyone, regardless of their technical skill levels. If we're getting to the point where competent but annoying and disruptive religious wingdings simply cannot be fired for fear of being accused of religious discrimination, we're in trouble.

And this being the case, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Coppedge's technical skills were sufficient so that if he'd been easy-going, sociable, and well behaved he'd have stayed on without any difficulty. In my working world, you can be a wizard programmer and you'll STILL be found not quite good enough at it if you are a troublemaker thumbing your nose at the boss.

I tend to agree with you. If a person is obnoxiously focused on controversial or otherwise 'off topic' issues in the workplace and is in people's faces with them, making them uncomfortable, they are going to tend to get knocked down a few notches on the 'keep' list. Just because those issues are 'religious' does not make the fact they contributed to his firing an issue of religious discrimination, any more than some fellow obnoxiously focused (pro or con) on homosexual issues getting let go in part of that is a discrimination issue. These are behavioral issues, creating an uncomfortable environment for your co-workers has consequences.

To be real religious discrimination, the person would need to have otherwise been within (or only perhaps slightly outside) normal parameters for performance and behavior and then have his religion be a factor in his/her dismissal.

It is, however, very hard to objectively separate these issues, and IF religious topics obnoxiously presented were a factor, then the potential for religious discrimination exists. And it is also true that when real discrimination exists, it is often the case that the real issue is deflected by pointing to secondary issues raised out of proportion. These all together making getting to the heart of the issue, and hence properly understanding all the factors contributing to the dismissal, difficult if not impossible.

Once the 'discrimination card' is played, objectivity in these cases is rarely maintained by either side.


Jim

[phank]

Once the 'discrimination card' is played, objectivity in these cases is rarely maintained by either side.

A phenomenon well understood by, and deployed by, creationists in many places. I think the DI has a list of creationists who have been dismissed, and the DI is of course certain to label ALL of these cases as religious discrimination.

So, for eample, it doesn't matter how many times officials at Iowa State point out that Guillermo Gonzalez published no papers, did no research, advised no graduate students, and brought in no grant money. He failed to get tenure due to religious discrimination! Nor does it matter how many times the Smithsonian explains that Sternberg wasn't their employee, lost none of his privileges or office, etc., and in fact nobody did anything to him at all! It was STILL religious discrimination.

Cases like these (I think we can be sure Coppedge will be added to the list) are what drive the appearance of what's been called "Christian persecution" - the practice of demanding special privileges and crying persecution if they don't get them.

[Jorge]

I tend to agree with you. If a person is obnoxiously focused on controversial or otherwise 'off topic' issues in the workplace and is in people's faces with them, making them uncomfortable, they are going to tend to get knocked down a few notches on the 'keep' list. Just because those issues are 'religious' does not make the fact they contributed to his firing an issue of religious discrimination, any more than some fellow obnoxiously focused (pro or con) on homosexual issues getting let go in part of that is a discrimination issue. These are behavioral issues, creating an uncomfortable environment for your co-workers has consequences.

To be real religious discrimination, the person would need to have otherwise been within (or only perhaps slightly outside) normal parameters for performance and behavior and then have his religion be a factor in his/her dismissal.

It is, however, very hard to objectively separate these issues, and IF religious topics obnoxiously presented were a factor, then the potential for religious discrimination exists. And it is also true that when real discrimination exists, it is often the case that the real issue is deflected by pointing to secondary issues raised out of proportion. These all together making getting to the heart of the issue, and hence properly understanding all the factors contributing to the dismissal, difficult if not impossible.

Once the 'discrimination card' is played, objectivity in these cases is rarely maintained by either side.


Jim

*************************************************

You guys - allies of Atheists as well as Atheists themselves - are
a sorry bunch of pathetic losers. It is fascinating to see how you
eagerly accept whatever the liberal prestitutes put out as if it
were "gospel truth". Rest assured, it isn't.

Propaganda such as "Coppedge was confrontational and aggressive" ...
"Coppedge was incompetent" ... and similar accusations are lies, plain
and simple. And anyone with an IQ above that of a tulip possessing
at least a whiff of honesty would know this. After all, are these events
and the corresponding accusations just a "coincidence"? You'd have
to be a imbecil to believe that. Besides, as I said earlier, the evidence
is undeniable in favor of Coppedge.

But, guess what? Go up against Big Brother with virtually bottomless
pockets and you're going to lose regardless of what you present.
For example, was Clinton prosecuted for his obvious, multiple lies?
The government continuously feeds us lies knowing that gullible
idiots like you people are just going to suck it up. Lies like an
"unemployment rate of 7.8%" ... "an inflation rate of 2%" ... "a strong
U.S. currency" ... and now, "Coppedge was 'rightfully' terminated".

I personally met David at a conference before his trial and so I got to
hear the facts straight from the source itself. The evidence presented
was beyond question and so I know for fact, Fact, FACT that the liberal
prestitutes are lying through their teeth.

Of course, none of this matters. What matters is that clowns like you
unquestionably accept such rulings because it serves your agenda - period!

Carry on, Bozos ... carry on.

Jorge

[Leonhard]

Don't feed the troll.

[Tiggy]

I personally met David at a conference before his trial and so I got to
hear the facts straight from the source itself.

Kent Hovind told you he was innocent and being framed too as I recall.

- T

[Jorge]

Don't feed the troll.

******************************************************

WOW !!! - what a scholarly, eloquent, masterful response.
I'll bet you went to school for many years to compose that.

Like I said, none of my input matters. What matters is that clowns like
you accept without question such rulings because it serves your agenda.

Carry on, Bozo ... carry on.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Kent Hovind told you he was innocent and being framed too as I recall.

- T

**********************************

WRONG AGAIN, k-k-klown.

You have the nasty habit of talking about things of which you are clueless.
Oh ... wait ... my bad. It's not a "nasty habit". It's just that you're clueless
about everything.

Jorge

[Tiggy]

Like I said, none of my input matters. What matters is that clowns like
you accept without question such rulings because it serves your agenda.

If Coppedge had spent more time keeping his skill set up to date and less on being an obnoxious God-botherer he might still have a job at JPL. But he didn't.

- T

[Roy]

I personally doubt that the issue was so cut and dried. Even JPL's lawyer admits that Coppedge "was confrontational and insensitive to customers and colleagues, who had complained about his behavior." I should hope that these reasons would be sufficient to fire anyone, regardless of their technical skill levels. If we're getting to the point where competent but annoying and disruptive religious wingdings simply cannot be fired for fear of being accused of religious discrimination, we're in trouble.

I wasn't limiting it to technical skills - customer support is a skill too.

Roy

[phank]

I wasn't limiting it to technical skills - customer support is a skill too.

Roy

OK. Though I don't know where one would take classes on how to do more programming and less preaching in the workplace. It's not like repeated advice and warnings from the boss had the slightest effect.

[Roy]

OK. Though I don't know where one would take classes on how to do more programming and less preaching in the workplace. It's not like repeated advice and warnings from the boss had the slightest effect.

You should work where I do . We have a 3-day course on "Working Together" for such people.

Roy

[phank]

Just hypothetically, let's say someone is fired for spending all their time preaching atheism in the workplace, rather than keeping their skills up to date. I'm talking here about exactly the same behavior as Coppedge engaged in, changing only the content of his efforts. Does anyone suppose Jorge would defend him just as vigorously?

Seems clear to me that to Jorge it really doesn't matter whether he was particularly competent, or whether the program was winding down and some people were going to be released, or whether he spent much of his time annoying his colleagues. What matters to Jorge is ONLY that he was preaching something Jorge likes to hear, and if he were preaching anything else (and acting otherwise just the same) Jorge would have no comment.

Which is one of the (many) reasons nobody takes Jorge seriously. He CLAIMS to be defending Coppedge's behavior, but of course he is not. I think if Coppedge had tied his victims up, gagged them, and used a megaphone to preach ID at them, Jorge would STILL find some atheist agenda for firing him.