I suspect that someone in management at the Home Depot store where he worked probably used the policy as a pretext for firing Mr. Keezer. I also suspect that there were customer complaints involved. Without a lot more information on Mr. Keezer's performance, his dealings with customer's and his dealing with co-workers, I have not way of being able to tell if he was singled out unfairly.

Sometimes managers take a "short-cut" by finding a policy pretext for dismissal instead of thoroughly documenting poor performance or customer complaints. When this happens, it usually makes for a messy dismissal and seems arbitrary to on-lookers.

Some places have a strict policy against wearing any sort of political articles (or even against having political bumper stickers on your vehicle if you park on site). Notably, the US Government forbids its employees from wearing political articles or from keeping desk items which might be construed as political in nature. Employees at Johnson Space Center are asked not to have political bumper stickers on their cars. The policy is very well documented, publicized, and enforced (at least at the Space Center - I can't speak for other facilities).

The point of the policy is to keep from alienating anyone. I suspect that was the point of the policy at Home Depot, as well. Alienating your client base (or constituency) is generally bad policy, financially speaking. However, if the employee was allowed to wear the button in question for over a year without anything being said, then there might have been a new manager who was more strict about policy or the policy may have been used as a convenient route to dismiss him rather than go through a longer process of documenting issues which might have been more prevalent.

Until such time that the pledge of allegiance changes and does not have the word God in it (which I hope never happens since that is how our country was founded), then the whole situation is goofy. Unless Home Depot is a foreigner owned company, and doesn't really want to promote patriotism for OUR country, then it's a bit silly and I don't think that firing someone for wearing a patriotic pin is grounds enough to fire them, in my opinion. However, I did used to bring a bible to work with me at a place that I had time to read & study for college courses(3rd shift convenience store). I didn't get into trouble for bringing the bible, but I did get into hot water with the owner for playing as 'very low keyed background music' a christian radio station. I was told if I wanted to keep my job, that I had to change stations. This happened to me over 20 years ago, so, it's not a new concept. People would rather bow to the money god and not offend the haters religion, than to worship a god who promotes values and morals in a society which needs all the help it can get.

Home Depot offered Mr. Keezer an option - to wear a patriotic button that did not mention God. He chose not to comply with corporate policy, a policy that he probably signed paperwork accepting when he was originally hired. To my mind, this essentially means he quit.

I also think, based on the wording of the original question as well as your responses to some of the other answers, that you are seeing causality where there is really only correlation. While the button may have come to management's attention at around the same time Mr. Keezer started bringing his bible, that does NOT mean his bringing the Bible caused management to say something about the pin. They could have noticed it months before and were trying to determine the best course of action to request removal without offending Keezer, or causing legal issues for Home Depot. Or a complaint from a fellow employee or even a Home Depot customer could have been made around the same time as the lunchtime Bible reading began, and that complaint was what caused them to speak to him about the button. The Bible was simply something that occurred at about the same time. Making the assumption that the Bible reading was the cause of anything is taking a leap that is unsubstantiated from the article you provided.

Also, you mention in a couple of places that the folks (by which I think you mean our Founding Fathers) put the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance. This is not the case. That phrase was not added until 1954, much to the dismay of the Pledge's original author Francis Bellamy. (http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm) And taking the ideals of our Founding Fathers too literally is a slippery slope in itself - remember, these great men counted slaves as only 3/5 of a person and denied anyone other than white men the right to vote. They had wonderful ideals, but those ideals have to be adapted to a changing world. Freedom of religion means we have to respect all religions, and sometimes the only way to do this is to not allow any religion into the workplace for fear of being accused of preferential treatment towards one faith over another - which is exactly what Home Depot was trying to prevent.

This is a simple matter of law. I doubt that Home Depot will be able to prove that the employee's actions caused an "undue hardship" on the company, and would subsequently lose. I truly hope this individual sues. I'm not a Christian, but I would not want to be discriminated against by an employer for wearing a symbol of my religion. If people are allowed to wear crosses to work, this pin should not have been a problem. I worked at Home Depot, and there was a manager who wore a Christian fish on his collar. No one ever said a word to him, and he wasn't fired.

Religious Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Under Title VII:

* Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices - except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.
* Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
* Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices by allowing: flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, modification of grooming requirements and other workplace practices, policies and/or procedures.
* An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.
* Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
* Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

Patriotic buttons? No.

Buttons that reference religion? Yes.

The phrasing of your question is a little misleading because Home Depot DID offer him a replacement pin that was patriotic, encouraging him to support his company. The issue was with the mention of "One Nation Under God", which, taken by itself, has a very strong religious undertone.

It's also misleading because he wasn't fired for wearing the pin. Technically he was fired for not removing the pin when he was told to (there's a difference). In other words, he wasn't just fired on the spot. He was given a warning, and directly defied his superiors. You just can't do that.

The problem this guy has is that:

#1 - According to Home Depot they have a standing policy against religious icons/symbols/words/etc. in the workplace (and I'm betting that it says so in his employee handbook).

#2 - They probably only had a problem when they did because a coworker filed a complaint, otherwise corporate never would've noticed

It's a pretty picky thing to get in a snit about with an employee, and it's a shame that it came to a firing. It would've been nice for him to just accept the alternate patriotic pin and acquiesce. After all, if he was really worried about patriotism, does it matter what kind of patriotic pin you're wearing? Or was it really a religious statement?

In which case, Home Depot was right on the nose in laying down the law. ;)

This is a tricky and thorny issue from a human resources point of view. The best thing for all involved would have been if the store had implemented a zero tolerance policy on any none corporate accessory worn by employees on the floor. That way, even though it may seem cold, they avoid situations were people may feel singled out.

I personally see nothing wrong with the pin he was wearing. If in fact they simply used that as an excuse to fire him for reading the Bible on his breaks,then perhaps we should be talking about a lawsuit for abridging his freedom of religion.