Lawsuit: HVAC Guy Claims Working With Women Is Against His Religion

You know, I cannot find a single picture of former HVAC technician Paul Ostapa anywhere on the whole internet — and that’s a tragedy for every one of us, because, apparently, he is just the most irresistible man on earth.

The Latham, New York, dreamboat is suing Trane U.S. Inc, his employer of 16 years, for religious discrimination, after he was fired for “insubordination” due to his refusal to work with a recently hired female technician if there were not other men in the room or vehicle with them — which, he says, violated his “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Ostapa, you see, abides by the Billy Graham Rule, which holds that a married man cannot ever be alone in a room or car or whatever with women other than his wife. You may remember this rule from the time we had a Vice President (Mike Pence) who abided by it. Although even he did not claim he couldn’t be alone with a woman in a work-related context — he just avoided dining alone with women other than his wife or being at events where alcohol was being served without her. It’s still weird, but it’s more manageable than, say, refusing to repair an air conditioner with one or needing to get off a bus when it’s just you, a female bus driver and a little old lady.

Anyway, after his company hired this female technician — referred to in the lawsuit as Jane Doe — Ostapa told his supervisor, Mr. Audette, that he would not be able to work alone with her because of his religion. Audette, according to Ostapa, agreed to accommodate him.

Mr. Audette laughed at first, telling Paul that he would not have to worry about being attracted to Jane Doe (Paul would later learn that Jane Doe is a lesbian). Paul quickly retorted that his sincerely held religious beliefs based on Scripture must be obeyed irrespective of the woman’s looks or sexual preferences and that they were not contingent on the potential for sinful conduct. As Scripture compels Paul to believe, his presence alone with a woman carries with it the appearance of evil from which he is to abstain. Paul further explained that the purpose of the teaching is to protect his reputation by insulating myself against false accusations.

Ultimately, Mr. Audette agreed to the accommodation Paul requested.

So, to be clear, his religious belief is that he needs other men around him while working, because this woman, who is just trying to do her damn job, might accuse him of rape. Or someone else might accuse them of having an affair. Is that a religious belief, or is that paranoia? Hard to tell!

One day, one of Ostapa’s fellow technicians got up to go do something during work, leaving him alone with his female co-worker. This caused him “great inner conflict and emotional turmoil,” after which he had to do a whole lot of praying. Then, on another occasion, his dispatcher informed him that Jane Doe would be joining him on his job site the next day.

Oh, the horror! Ostapa told the dispatcher that he had a special dispensation to not have to work alone with women.

The dispatcher, in turn, filed a complaint against Ostapa, which ultimately led to his dismissal for insubordination. Ostapa and his lawyers from the Liberty Counsel (natch) say that this violated his rights under Title VII, which requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs.

But the key word there is “reasonable.”

Reasonable accommodations can be something like being allowed to pray at a certain time of day, have certain days off from work, have dietary accommodations, the ability to wear certain clothes or wear one’s hair a certain way, etc. etc. They can’t be something that hinders the ability of someone else to do their job or that, frankly, allows the holder of said sincere religious beliefs to discriminate against someone for their gender or for anything else. They can’t be “I cannot work with this fellow employee, for fear she will try to jump my bones or accuse me of rape.” Why? Because that’s even more uncomfortable for her.

Aside from that, this only makes sense as a belief if the only way one can cheat on one’s wife, sexually assault someone, or be accused of such is to be alone in a room with a woman. Jerry Falwell Jr., for instance, got into trouble involving the pool boy he watched his wife bang.

Was It Jerry Falwell Jr. In The Outhouse With The Pool Boy? DOES WONKETTE WIN THE GAME OF ‘CLUE’?

We certainly know of more than a few very holy, homophobic men who have found themselves embroiled in sex scandals involving absolutely no women at all. Also, meth.

Not to mention the near-endless array of pastors, youth pastors, priests, evangelists, super holy folks, etc. who have, you know, molested children.

Anti-Drag Laws Spreading Like Kudzu, So Here Are THIS WEEK’S Stories About Straight Christians Abusing Kids

Frankly, the only way any of us could ever really be sure of Paul Ostapa’s sexual purity would be for him to never leave his house or have anyone over but his own wife.

There is also the fact that this is not an actual tenet of Christianity, or even any particular sect of Christianity. Ostapa and his lawyers claim that this religious belief comes from the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife in Genesis 39. In that story, this guy Potiphar’s wife developed a thing for one of his slaves, Joseph, and kept sexually harassing him all of the time. She eventually cornered him when they were alone one time, ripped his cloak off and tried to bang him. After he turned her down, she claimed he had tried to rape her.

I am not a religious scholar here, but it seems like the issue in that scenario was the sexual harassment and the false accusation and not, you know, the part about “being alone in a room with a woman.”

Also, according to what I have read from other Christians, including his own grandson, it’s not even clear that Billy Graham ever intended anyone to follow this “rule,” other than himself and those who worked in his ministry, owing to the fact that he was a traveling evangelist and wanted to avoid any scandals or the appearance of impropriety. The rule is sexist as hell, obviously, but it at least made slightly more sense for him — given how often religious leaders find themselves in trouble for sexual assault and extramarital affairs — than it does for a random HVAC tech in Latham, New York.

Donate Just Once!

All of that being said, even if it were a “sincerely held religious belief” that made any kind of sense, it is not the kind that can be reasonably accommodated without infringing on Jane Doe’s rights as an employee and making things extremely uncomfortable for her and any other women the company might hire in the future. Also, if it were a universally or even commonly held belief, it would make it almost impossible for any woman to succeed in many professions (and make it even more difficult for us to ruin the workplace altogether).

This is likely the reason why there has not yet been a single successful “religious accommodation” lawsuit pertaining to the Billy Graham rule.

Hopefully, this will not be the first.

[Friendly Atheist]