Wright Lindsey Jennings
This is part of a series of articles by Wright Lindsey Jennings’ labor and employment team examining key trends for employers and the workplace in 2025, authored by law clerk Wynne James. The series was featured in Arkansas Business.
In today’s complex legal landscape, we are seeing an increasing number of “crossover” cases where different protected rights come into tension with each other in the workplace.
One notable example is where an individual’s religious beliefs may conflict with an organization’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and its anti-harassment policies. Such cases often put employers in the challenging position of balancing respect for employees’ religious views while ensuring a harassment-free and inclusive work environment for all.
A recent case in the Eighth Circuit exemplifies this tension. In Snyder v. Arconic Corp., Daniel Snyder was fired by Arconic Corp. following a statement he mistakenly made on a message board on the company’s intranet site expressing disapproval of the rainbow as a symbol of LGBTQ+ pride based on his religious beliefs. Believing he was responding anonymously to a survey rather than posting on a public message board, Snyder wrote, “It’s a abomination to God. Rainbow is not meant to be displayed as a sign for sexual gender” with regard to the company’s use of a rainbow in its logo during LGBTQ+ Pride Month.
Arconic found the post offensive and in violation of its diversity and antiharassment policies.
After Arconic fired him, Snyder sued, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Iowa Civil Rights Act. The district court ruled in favor of Arconic, granting its summary judgment motion and denying Snyder’s. Snyder appealed, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, underscoring the complexities involved when different rights intersect.
Key takeaways:
- Because Snyder conceded that the post was made mistakenly, the act of posting it was not a protected expression of his religious views. In other words, because Snyder’s religion did not compel him to make the post, there was no conflict between Snyder’s religious beliefs and Arconic’s policy.
- Arconic’s diversity and antiharassment policies, which prohibit conduct that creates a hostile or offensive work environment, were facially neutral and applied consistently. The court emphasized that as long as an employer reasonably believes an employee violated company policy, it can take action without running afoul of discrimination laws.
- For a retaliation claim to succeed, the employee must show that they engaged in protected activity. Snyder’s claim failed because his opposition to the company’s use of the rainbow symbol did not meet the legal standard for opposing an unlawful employment practice under Title VII. Employers should ensure that adverse actions are clearly linked to policy violations, not employee complaints about perceived unfairness.
- The court reiterated that federal courts do not second-guess business decisions based on mistakes unless those decisions stem from discriminatory intent. In Snyder’s case, his firing was based on a violation of a legitimate company policy rather than religious expression.
As employers navigate similar conflicts, it is key to remember that while every employee’s rights deserve protection, maintaining neutral and consistent application of policies is essential to preserving an inclusive workplace.