ADVERTISEMENT

A dentist is being sued for harassing staff by constantly playing Christian music

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,518
62,750
113
A Michigan dentist who streamed contemporary Christian music in her dental office and held prayer meetings for staff members is being sued by four former employees for religious discrimination.

The former employees of Tina Marshall in Lake Orion, Mich., allege they were either fired or reprimanded for objecting to the religious practices, according to a lawsuit filed in August 2015 in Oakland County.

Lawyers for the four plaintiffs told The Washington Post on Wednesday that the case is still in the discovery phase. They have requested a jury trial, which could begin in the summer.

David Kotzian, who is representing the former Marshall employees, would not comment further on what damages his clients are seeking from the suit but referred to the complaint, which specifies “they are seeking damages for loss of past and future income and employment benefits, outrage, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anxiety, emotional distress, and loss of professional reputation.”

“We were all on edge. We were trying to be nice to the patients and do good dental work, but she kept forcing the music and her beliefs on us. Several patients questioned the music, and I turned it off and turned on the TV. So I was ‘disobedient,'” Nancy Kordus, a former dental assistant at Marshall’s office who is a plaintiff in the suit, told the Clarkston News about her former employer.

Kordus said Marshall wanted the music playing at all times in order to “ward off demons,” according to the complaint.

The suit also states that Marshall held morning prayer meetings with the staff, which began as optional gatherings but then became mandatory.

Kordus is among the four former employees, including Kimberly Hinson, Tammy Kulis and Sara Bambard, who are suing Marshall for what they say is her violation of Michigan’s Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act.

Kordus claimed she submitted written requests to Marshall to stop pressuring staff members to conform to Marshall’s religious practices in 2014. Kordus was fired on Aug. 21, 2014.

Kulis, who worked at the front desk of the office, said she felt compelled to resign in October 2014 because of religious harassment and discriminatory practices.

Lawyers for Marshall filed a response to the lawsuit in November, denying claims she forced her religious practices on her staff.

“None of the Plaintiffs were forced to discuss or disclose any religious practices of preference as part of their employment,” the filing stated.

Marshall’s legal representatives have requested that the lawsuit be dismissed.

Her lawyer, Keith Jablonski, told The Washington Post this week his client is “being attacked in this lawsuit for her Christian beliefs, based solely on her desire to play religious music and radio stations in the dental office of the business that she owns.”

“We believe that when the facts, and not baseless allegations, are presented to a jury, we will establish that this group of former disgruntled employees are simply looking to profit off of their own prejudices towards Dr. Marshall and her Christian faith,” he said. “Dr. Marshall flatly denies engaging in any discriminatory employment practices.”

In her court filing, Marshall denied she held mandatory prayer meetings, though she acknowledged she prayed with staff members “on certain occasions, and denied that they were mandatory or daily.”

She also told the Clarkston News that she played religious music because “it’s just soothing to the spirit. I can’t tell you how many patients I have come in and just make comments that it is so calm in here.”

Marshall purchased the dental practice in 2008 but her religious practices were only incorporated at the office as she became part of a local ministry run by Craig Stasio in 2013.

Stasio, who owns the Agape Massage Therapy & Chiropractic in addition to running his ministry, is also included in the lawsuit since Marshall hired Stasio to restructure her dental office in 2015.

Under his management, according to the lawsuit, “Stasio was enlisted to provide the ‘help’ Dr. Marshall needed in terminating the staff members that objected being exposed to the practices and beliefs of the ministry.”

Sarah Bambard, who was hired in 2011 to work at the front desk in Marshall’s office, says she was made office manager by Stasio on July 6, 2015, and instructed by him to only hire new employees that accepted Marshall’s religious practices. Stasio began participating in interviews conducted by Bambard, to assure applicants embraced Marshall’s faith, the lawsuit says.

Many of the new employees under Stasio were members of his religious group, the suit says.

Shortly after Stasio formalized his influence over Marshall’s office, Hinson, a dental hygienist, and Bambard were fired in late July 2015.

Stasio has also filed a response to the lawsuit, denying the claims presented by the four women. His lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.

Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, told The Washington Post that in cases of religious harassment, “the basic question is whether the unwelcome religious statements and conduct are so severe or pervasive that they create a hostile, abusive working environment.”

“Religious coercion in the workplace, whether implicit or explicit, is unlawful,” he said. “Bosses can’t force employees to pray with them or punish workers for not embracing or joining the employers’ faith.”

In order for the lawsuit to have merit, Mach said the former employees need to prove their boss crossed the line and forced her religion on the staff by detailing the frequency and nature of her conduct and proof they raised objections.

Meanwhile, Stasio’s profile in his Michigan community has become the subject of media attention.

A local news report in November suggested that Stasio’s ministry is cult-like in that members refer to Stasio as “the prophet” and frequently cut ties with family and friends once they come under his influence.

Stasio’s religious group is composed primarily of “young, attractive women,” many of whom live in communal housing provided by Stasio, according to Fox Detroit.

He has denied claims that his faith group is a cult or that he has influenced members of his spiritual community to distance themselves from their families.

He cited the religious conversions that some members of his spiritual community have undergone and said the new religious experience has “brought a lot of tension in their relationships,” according to the Clarkston News.

“A lot of the people after getting constantly rejected and attacked by their families, they kind of distanced themselves. Well that was perceived as,’ I told them to do this,’ which I was the polar opposite, if your family doesn’t agree with your faith choice, that’s understandable, love them the best you can,” he added.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...more-top-stories_dentist-219pm:homepage/story
 
They claim that they were illegally fired and faced religious discrimination. You don't really support firing someone solely on the basis of their religion do you?

Yes. You work for the boss, so you have to put up with the boss. If you can't do that then go find another job. I've worked jobs where I hated my boss, and while it might not have been about religion, they were just as oppressive as this dentist. The bottom line is that it's their business, and if you don't like it, don't work there. I didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IaHawk44
Go find another job.

In an ideal world, this is the correct answer.

In today's bizarro world, we have to hire grocery store cashiers who refuse to ring up pork products, people who are required to carry a "ceremonial" knife where ever they go, people who are forbidden from cutting their hair/beards, and other such malcontents.
 
To be fair, I think we would all sue if someone played that Islamic call to prayer thing all day.
 
Look, why would you want to work for someone who didn't like you? Do you know how terrible that would be? This is all about lazy people trying to steal money from someone through a corrupt system.

If they're in a state that isn't "At Will" and they felt they were wrongfully terminated then they have every right to sue her ass over wrongful termination. Not to mention that this crazy dentist will continue doing these things until someone puts a stop to it. When you just allow people to act however they want you get people like Kim Davis who think they're above the law.
 
If they're in a state that isn't "At Will" and they felt they were wrongfully terminated then they have every right to sue her ass over wrongful termination. Not to mention that this crazy dentist will continue doing these things until someone puts a stop to it. When you just allow people to act however they want you get people like Kim Davis who think they're above the law.

There's no such thing as "at will" states. You're confusing the term with "right to work".
 
Oh goodness.

Oh goodness, what? All states are technically "at will" states. There are just varying degrees of restrictions on the non-contractual relationship.

When people say "at will" states they're confusing the term with "right to work" states.
 
I am not religious, but if you are offended by the christian music playing in your workplace, then find new work. Its kind of like that Kim Davis beast. If your religion doesn't allow you to fulfill the duties of your job, get a new job that does not go against your beliefs.

if the dentist punishes or terminates an employee for not participating in these prayer meetings, that is a big problem.
if the dentist doesnt mandate attendance of the prayer meetings, then don't attend and do your job (or find a new one).

as a non believer I get tired of people who get easily offended by anybody who displays their religion. I don't get the whole talking to an invisible sky fairy thing, but unless somebody is trampling on the freedom of others in the name of religion, then by all means continue practicing whatever crazy beliefs that you may have
 
Do you guys really hear the background music when you are working?

Err. has this right the music is non starter the meetings if mandatory would be a different thing. Of course mandatory will have to mean that and not "I felt like I had to go to keep my job"
 
Oh goodness, what? All states are technically "at will" states. There are just varying degrees of restrictions on the non-contractual relationship.

When people say "at will" states they're confusing the term with "right to work" states.

Enjoy your weekend hoss.

But aren't you the one in HR? This is, umm, rather sad.
 
Last edited:
Sounds a lot like my dentist. I'm atheist, so would prefer not to listen to it. But the guy's team does amazing work. I'll gladly put up with a little Christian music for a good cleaning.
 
My dentist used to give me head sets and let me lay there for 30 minutes getting high on nitrous oxide while rocking to the Pointer Sisters!! It was the best.

Trad, please read this regarding At-Wll vs. Right to Work.

http://www.mcrazlaw.com/getting-your-terms-right-right-to-work-vs-at-will-employment/

Getting Your Terms Right: “Right to Work” -vs.- “At-Will Employment”
“This is a right-to-work state and I’ll fire whoever I want for whatever reason I want.” The problem with this statement that employers often make is that “right-to-work” laws involve employee rights during an employment relationship, particularly in the context of labor unions. The “employment at-will” doctrine is what governs employer and employee rights in terminating an employment relationship. Many people wrongfully use the term “right-to-work” interchangeably with the phrase “employment at-will” because they do not understand the difference.

The right-to-work doctrine, originally established in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, gives employees the option to refrain from engaging in collective activity such as labor organizing and union representation. A right-to-work state is a state that does not require union membership as a condition of employment. In other states, a person applying for a job where the employees are unionized could be required to join the union as a requirement of being hired. Because Arizona is a right-to-work state, employees are not required to be members of a union or pay union dues.

The employment at-will doctrine applies when an employee works for an employer without a written contract, signed by both the employer and employee that sets forth the terms of the employment relationship. This is the situation for the vast majority of employment relationships.

Under the employment at-will doctrine, both the employer and employee can terminate an employment relationship at any time without consequence. The employment relationship can be terminated for any reason or no reason. The employer cannot, however, ever terminate an employee for an “illegal” reason, such as termination based on discrimination against certain protected classes such as sex, gender, race, religion or national origin; violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act; and termination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

So, employers can terminate employees that do not have a written employment contract for any non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reason. This is because Arizona is an at-will employment state, not because it is a right-to-work state.
 
My dentist used to give me head sets and let me lay there for 30 minutes getting high on nitrous oxide while rocking to the Pointer Sisters!! It was the best.

Trad, please read this regarding At-Wll vs. Right to Work.

http://www.mcrazlaw.com/getting-your-terms-right-right-to-work-vs-at-will-employment/

Getting Your Terms Right: “Right to Work” -vs.- “At-Will Employment”
“This is a right-to-work state and I’ll fire whoever I want for whatever reason I want.” The problem with this statement that employers often make is that “right-to-work” laws involve employee rights during an employment relationship, particularly in the context of labor unions. The “employment at-will” doctrine is what governs employer and employee rights in terminating an employment relationship. Many people wrongfully use the term “right-to-work” interchangeably with the phrase “employment at-will” because they do not understand the difference.

The right-to-work doctrine, originally established in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, gives employees the option to refrain from engaging in collective activity such as labor organizing and union representation. A right-to-work state is a state that does not require union membership as a condition of employment. In other states, a person applying for a job where the employees are unionized could be required to join the union as a requirement of being hired. Because Arizona is a right-to-work state, employees are not required to be members of a union or pay union dues.

The employment at-will doctrine applies when an employee works for an employer without a written contract, signed by both the employer and employee that sets forth the terms of the employment relationship. This is the situation for the vast majority of employment relationships.

Under the employment at-will doctrine, both the employer and employee can terminate an employment relationship at any time without consequence. The employment relationship can be terminated for any reason or no reason. The employer cannot, however, ever terminate an employee for an “illegal” reason, such as termination based on discrimination against certain protected classes such as sex, gender, race, religion or national origin; violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act; and termination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

So, employers can terminate employees that do not have a written employment contract for any non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reason. This is because Arizona is an at-will employment state, not because it is a right-to-work state.

Thank you. That's exactly what I've been saying. Not sure what IowaHawk's problem is with what I said.
 
Here's a map of "Right to work" states:

Right%20to%20Work%20Map.jpg


And here's a map of "Employment At Will States":

usa_map.gif
 
A Michigan dentist who streamed contemporary Christian music in her dental office and held prayer meetings for staff members is being sued by four former employees for religious discrimination.

The former employees of Tina Marshall in Lake Orion, Mich., allege they were either fired or reprimanded for objecting to the religious practices, according to a lawsuit filed in August 2015 in Oakland County.

Lawyers for the four plaintiffs told The Washington Post on Wednesday that the case is still in the discovery phase. They have requested a jury trial, which could begin in the summer.

David Kotzian, who is representing the former Marshall employees, would not comment further on what damages his clients are seeking from the suit but referred to the complaint, which specifies “they are seeking damages for loss of past and future income and employment benefits, outrage, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anxiety, emotional distress, and loss of professional reputation.”

“We were all on edge. We were trying to be nice to the patients and do good dental work, but she kept forcing the music and her beliefs on us. Several patients questioned the music, and I turned it off and turned on the TV. So I was ‘disobedient,'” Nancy Kordus, a former dental assistant at Marshall’s office who is a plaintiff in the suit, told the Clarkston News about her former employer.

Kordus said Marshall wanted the music playing at all times in order to “ward off demons,” according to the complaint.

The suit also states that Marshall held morning prayer meetings with the staff, which began as optional gatherings but then became mandatory.

Kordus is among the four former employees, including Kimberly Hinson, Tammy Kulis and Sara Bambard, who are suing Marshall for what they say is her violation of Michigan’s Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act.

Kordus claimed she submitted written requests to Marshall to stop pressuring staff members to conform to Marshall’s religious practices in 2014. Kordus was fired on Aug. 21, 2014.

Kulis, who worked at the front desk of the office, said she felt compelled to resign in October 2014 because of religious harassment and discriminatory practices.

Lawyers for Marshall filed a response to the lawsuit in November, denying claims she forced her religious practices on her staff.

“None of the Plaintiffs were forced to discuss or disclose any religious practices of preference as part of their employment,” the filing stated.

Marshall’s legal representatives have requested that the lawsuit be dismissed.

Her lawyer, Keith Jablonski, told The Washington Post this week his client is “being attacked in this lawsuit for her Christian beliefs, based solely on her desire to play religious music and radio stations in the dental office of the business that she owns.”

“We believe that when the facts, and not baseless allegations, are presented to a jury, we will establish that this group of former disgruntled employees are simply looking to profit off of their own prejudices towards Dr. Marshall and her Christian faith,” he said. “Dr. Marshall flatly denies engaging in any discriminatory employment practices.”

In her court filing, Marshall denied she held mandatory prayer meetings, though she acknowledged she prayed with staff members “on certain occasions, and denied that they were mandatory or daily.”

She also told the Clarkston News that she played religious music because “it’s just soothing to the spirit. I can’t tell you how many patients I have come in and just make comments that it is so calm in here.”

Marshall purchased the dental practice in 2008 but her religious practices were only incorporated at the office as she became part of a local ministry run by Craig Stasio in 2013.

Stasio, who owns the Agape Massage Therapy & Chiropractic in addition to running his ministry, is also included in the lawsuit since Marshall hired Stasio to restructure her dental office in 2015.

Under his management, according to the lawsuit, “Stasio was enlisted to provide the ‘help’ Dr. Marshall needed in terminating the staff members that objected being exposed to the practices and beliefs of the ministry.”

Sarah Bambard, who was hired in 2011 to work at the front desk in Marshall’s office, says she was made office manager by Stasio on July 6, 2015, and instructed by him to only hire new employees that accepted Marshall’s religious practices. Stasio began participating in interviews conducted by Bambard, to assure applicants embraced Marshall’s faith, the lawsuit says.

Many of the new employees under Stasio were members of his religious group, the suit says.

Shortly after Stasio formalized his influence over Marshall’s office, Hinson, a dental hygienist, and Bambard were fired in late July 2015.

Stasio has also filed a response to the lawsuit, denying the claims presented by the four women. His lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.

Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, told The Washington Post that in cases of religious harassment, “the basic question is whether the unwelcome religious statements and conduct are so severe or pervasive that they create a hostile, abusive working environment.”

“Religious coercion in the workplace, whether implicit or explicit, is unlawful,” he said. “Bosses can’t force employees to pray with them or punish workers for not embracing or joining the employers’ faith.”

In order for the lawsuit to have merit, Mach said the former employees need to prove their boss crossed the line and forced her religion on the staff by detailing the frequency and nature of her conduct and proof they raised objections.

Meanwhile, Stasio’s profile in his Michigan community has become the subject of media attention.

A local news report in November suggested that Stasio’s ministry is cult-like in that members refer to Stasio as “the prophet” and frequently cut ties with family and friends once they come under his influence.

Stasio’s religious group is composed primarily of “young, attractive women,” many of whom live in communal housing provided by Stasio, according to Fox Detroit.

He has denied claims that his faith group is a cult or that he has influenced members of his spiritual community to distance themselves from their families.

He cited the religious conversions that some members of his spiritual community have undergone and said the new religious experience has “brought a lot of tension in their relationships,” according to the Clarkston News.

“A lot of the people after getting constantly rejected and attacked by their families, they kind of distanced themselves. Well that was perceived as,’ I told them to do this,’ which I was the polar opposite, if your family doesn’t agree with your faith choice, that’s understandable, love them the best you can,” he added.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/01/15/a-dentist-is-being-sued-for-harassing-staff-by-constantly-playing-christian-music/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_dentist-219pm:homepage/story
The world would be a better place if the four of them just jumped off a cliff. You want to know what Trump is going to be the next President? Americans are sick of this type of BS.
 
This is Lake Orion, Michigan. Home of Iowa QB Tyler Wiegers.
Cliff Clavin
 
Any employer who does this sort of crap is just flat plain stupid. I don't care how "educated" a person might be, to teach or expose one's religious beliefs on others is just out of line...and unlawful. Folks don't need to whore themselves out to this type of bullshit. Employers certainly have no need to expose their employees to their religious beliefs. either. These employers who expose their employees to this stuff are just flat out crazy.
 
The one turned off the music and turned on the TV... Why she thought it would be a good idea to watch TV would be a good idea is beyond me.
 
Right to work =\= At Will, the fact that you have not only confused the two but now tripled down on it is frightening considering your claim to be in HR.

I knew, and tried, to avoid this thread. See if I can make it the rest of the weekend without your ignorance pulling me back.
 
Right to work =\= At Will, the fact that you have not only confused the two but now tripled down on it is frightening considering your claim to be in HR.

I knew, and tried, to avoid this thread. See if I can make it the rest of the weekend without your ignorance pulling me back.

WTF are you talking about? I clearly said that the person who mentioned "at will states" was confusing the term BECAUSE ALL STATES ARE AT WILL STATES. I never said at will = right to work. Go back and read it again, tough guy.

You're so desperate to get a gotcha that you're not even reading what I wrote.
 
Pray tell how Fred was confusing with right to work.

Now the hard part: do it without admitting you idiotically confused the very terms you claimed he did.

There was a reason the other poster posted the definitions for you, you maroon. You have CLEARLY demonstrated a basic lack of understanding.

Damnit! I got dragged back in!
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT