Merged David Coppedge is suing the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for 'religious discrimination'

[Miss_Kitt]

Theater of the Absurd...

 

[ben m]

Which of the NCSE documents has the "screenplay"? I could use a laugh.

 

[billw]

Having worked at JPL as a Caltech employee from 1980 - 1997, mostly as a systems administrator in the institutional computing organization, here's my two cents:

Working in academia is different than working in corporate America, especially for an institution as prestigious as Caltech. There are a lot of really smart people working at JPL, which also means that there are a lot of really weird people, and a wide diversity of political opinions and religious beliefs. Academia is way more accepting of the weirdness and diversity.

I have never experienced any other workplace more tolerant of individual quirks than JPL. One guy came to work every day with his hair dyed and permed into blond curls, wearing women's high-heeled shoes, and a bra under his shirt. Another guy always wore huaraches, t-shirts and ragged cutoffs. Nobody ever said boo to them as long as they did their jobs. IMO, Coppedge would have had to have been really annoying to get someone to complain.

I can recall plenty of spirited discussions with JPL co-workers regarding sensitive topics like politics or religion, but nothing that crossed the line into harrassment. Employees were expected to behave like adults, and mostly they did.

One thing that Mr. Coppedge seems to have failed to notice is that if you work with scientists and engineers - but you are not a scientist or engineer yourself - you had better tread very carefully when arguing about science or engineering with people who may actually know what they're talking about.

 

[Questioninggeller]

The defense has started its cross-examination of Coppedge, and already it doesn't look too good for Coppedge and those who want to make him out as a creationist martyr:

Laid-Off JPL Worker Discounts Complaints
March 20, 2012
montrose.patch.com
By Donna Evans

The lead JPL defense attorney pointed out Tuesday that several co-workers complained about David Coppedge's demeanor and responsiveness -- people with whom he'd never discussed religion or politics.


Frustrated with not being able to explain the complaints' context, a red-faced David Coppedge admitted to the lead defense attorney Tuesday that several JPL employees had griped about his professionalism and ability clear back to 2004.

The terminated systems administrator read from his handwritten notes, which documented complaints his manager relayed to him eight years ago. At that time, Greg Chin passed along the co-workers' issues with Coppedge in an effort to have him adjust the way he interacted with people, defense attorney Jim Zapp said.
...

Full: montrose.patch.com

 

[Questioninggeller]

Which of the NCSE documents has the "screenplay"? I could use a laugh.

It's the one labeled "12/2/11: Plaintiff's Trial Brief" on the NCSE Coppedge page. Here's a link to the file:

http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1685

On page one:

"David, stop pushing your religion on people!"
--Greg Chin, March 2, 2009

The screenplay starts on page four and continues on to six with this introduction:

This is how the screenplay of this suspense thriller with all of its harrowing action would read[1]:

INT. WORK AREA-LATE AFTERNOON

COPPEDGE quietly approaches WEISENFELDER

COPPEDGE
Hi, Margaret. Tomorrow's the election and I was wondering if you have decided on Proposition 8 yet? I will be voting for it.

WEISENFELDER
(annoyed)
I disagree with your position on it and don't care to discuss it.

COPPEDGE
Is there anything I can say to chang your mind?

WEISENFELDER
No.
...

The footnote is:

Some liberties have been taken with the dialogue and action as artistic license. The dialogue is generally taken from Huntley's notes and Weisenfelder's deposition testimony.

Why would a lawyer include a "screenplay," much less one with "artistic license" in a court brief?

 

[nathan]

I am amused the 'screenplay' includes scenes where Coppedge is not present. Perhaps he's admitting to covert surveillance?

... and apparently the entire 'dramatic confrontation with Coppedge' consists of replying 'sure' to a 'would you look at this DVD?' question. The tension, it is unbearable!

 

[Complexity]

I think his coworkers should have sued him for stupid harassment.

 

[Corsair 115]

I kept reading the title of the thread as, "David Copperfield is suing the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for 'religious discrimination'". Needless to say I was wondering why exactly a magician would be taking umbrage at a science lab.

 

[ben m]

I'm amused that, when we're in Dover, PA, we're expected to pretend that Intelligent Design is an ordinary scientific theory with no religious content. That's why the court has no business taking it out of school curricula---deciding which science to teach is the job of the school board, not the court, so Intelligent Design is science science science and we're insulted that you would say otherwise.

(Which implies that you could fire Coppedge for ordinary, secular, job-related stupidity.)

And now in Pasadena, we're getting the opposite. Now, intelligent design is a personal religious expression, and work-place speech about Intelligent Design is protected under the religious clause of employment law. That's why Caltech has no right, under EEOC law, to restrict Coppedge from saying whatever he wants, case closed thank you.

(Which implies that you can't put it in public-school science curricula.)

 

[rwguinn]

i'm amused that, when we're in dover, pa, we're expected to pretend that intelligent design is an ordinary scientific theory with no religious content. That's why the court has no business taking it out of school curricula---deciding which science to teach is the job of the school board, not the court, so intelligent design is science science science and we're insulted that you would say otherwise.

(which implies that you could fire coppedge for ordinary, secular, job-related stupidity.)

and now in pasadena, we're getting the opposite. Now, intelligent design is a personal religious expression, and work-place speech about intelligent design is protected under the religious clause of employment law. That's why caltech has no right, under eeoc law, to restrict coppedge from saying whatever he wants, case closed thank you.

(which implictly es means that you can't put it in public-school science curricula.)

ftfy

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I need to get my eyes checked. I thought the thread title said "David Copperfield".

And I was like "What... can't he just make them disappear?"

 

[Tim Thompson]

JPL & Coppedge

I have never experienced any other workplace more tolerant of individual quirks than JPL.

I worked at JPL as a contractor from 1981-1984 and as a JPL direct employee from 1984 to 2008 when I was laid off due to budget constraints and simultaneously retired. I second billw's comment; I don't believe for a second that religious discrimination would ever be a factor in any termination at JPL, and I worked in groups with just about every kind of religious outlook you can think of. I was actually rather surprised by the wide sweep of tolerance for individual eccentricities (which may have been affected by my previous Air Force service, where individual eccentricities are illegal). At one point we decided that one of our supervisors was a "space alien" based on a list found in National Inquirer (or some such rag), "ten ways to tell if your co-workers are space aliens". He scored on all 10 points!

 

[Bob Klase]

I'm amused that, when we're in Dover, PA, we're expected to pretend that Intelligent Design is an ordinary scientific theory with no religious content. That's why the court has no business taking it out of school curricula---deciding which science to teach is the job of the school board, not the court, so Intelligent Design is science science science and we're insulted that you would say otherwise.

One might consider that the court ruling was initiated by 11 parents that filed the lawsuit. And the voters ousted all 8 of the school board members who voted in favor of ID in the first election after that.

Considering that, I'm amused that you think you're expected to pretend that Intelligent Design is an ordinary scientific theory with no religious content when you're in Dover.

And now in Pasadena, we're getting the opposite. Now, intelligent design is a personal religious expression, and work-place speech about Intelligent Design is protected under the religious clause of employment law.

But the court in Dover ruled that ID was religion, so it's hardly the opposite for lawyers in Pasadena to claim that ID is religion. That would be called 'agreeing'.

If he'd been fired because he believed in ID I suspect the courts would continue to agree with each other and he'd have a chance at winning based religious discrimination.

 

[Cuddles]

One might consider that the court ruling was initiated by 11 parents that filed the lawsuit. And the voters ousted all 8 of the school board members who voted in favor of ID in the first election after that.

Considering that, I'm amused that you think you're expected to pretend that Intelligent Design is an ordinary scientific theory with no religious content when you're in Dover.

But the court in Dover ruled that ID was religion, so it's hardly the opposite for lawyers in Pasadena to claim that ID is religion. That would be called 'agreeing'.

I think you're missing the point - it's not what the law says that ben m finds amusing, it's what ID proponents say. The whole point of ID is to pretend that creationism is actually science and not religion. That's the sole reason ID even exists as a concept - it was invented by going through a book (Of Pandas and People) and replacing all instances of "creation" with "intelligent design". Obviously this effort was so hilariously transparent that very few people actually fell for it, but since then creationists have mostly stuck with it, presumably in the hopes that if they repeat it enough times everyone will suddenly start believing them.

It's therefore quite amusing to see an ID proponent now arguing the exact opposite. The entire reason for the existence of ID is to pretend creationism is not religion, but now we have a creationist desperately arguing that ID absolutely is religion. That the law agrees it's still obviously religion is irrelevant to that amusement.

 

[ben m]

Considering that, I'm amused that you think you're expected to pretend that Intelligent Design is an ordinary scientific theory with no religious content when you're in Dover.

Sorry, you read my meaning backwards.

In the context of the Dover trial, Intelligent design advocates were eager to have us believe ID was science. In the context of the Coppedge trial, intelligent design advocates are eager to have us believe ID is religion.

 

[Questioninggeller]

A little more from the cross-examination:

JPL attorneys paint David Coppedge as problem employee
By Brian Charles, SGVN
PasadenaStarNews.com
03/21/2012 11:12:57 PM PDT


The lead attorney for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory civil trial with former employee David Coppedge painted the plaintiff Wednesday as a confrontational employee.
...
Despite JPL's requirement to disclose outside business interests, Coppedge never disclosed to JPL any information about his sale of DVDs.

"At JPL you took ethics training once a year, where you were supposed to report outside business activity," said James Zapp, lead attorney for JPL.

"You never reported these activities to JPL."

Coppedge acknowledged that he failed to disclose his sale of DVDs, as well as earnings from the business to the Internal Revenue Service or JPL as required by the science laboratory's policy.
...
On occasion, the culture of JPL offended Coppedge, according to his own testimony Wednesday.

In 2003, when a JPL Christmas Party began to be referred to as a Holiday Party, Coppedge objected. He testified Wednesday, that while change to a Holiday Party accounted for the agency's diverse population, it did so at the expense of Christians like himself.

"This doesn't include me and my beliefs," Coppedge said, pointing to a holiday flier admitted into evidence Wednesday. "We are having to sacrifice for a very small minority."
...
Wednesday marked the fifth day of testimony in the civil case between Coppedge and JPL. He was laid off as part of a massive downsizing of the Cassini Mission at the Pasadena-based science lab in 2011. One in three workers on the Cassini project received pink slips, with Coppedge among those laid off.
...
But Zapp said co-workers characterized Coppedge as confrontational and stubborn well before the 2009 incident with Chin. As far back as 2004, his co-workers described him as difficult to work with, a micromanager and someone who was "quick to say no," according to testimony Wednesday.

Chin defended Coppedge to his superiors, Zapp said, but Coppedge didn't listen.

"Everything that Mr. Chin said to you about customers' viewpoints, you would dismiss and say `you don't understand me," Zapp said.
...

Full: PasadenaStarNews.com

and

JPL trial: Coppedge, NASA agency tell different tales
By Daniel Siegal
GlendaleNewsPress.com
March 21, 2012


Two very different narratives are emerging from the trial in which former Jet Propulsion Laboratory worker David Coppedge claims he faced discrimination because he discussed the theory of intelligent design with co-workers.
...
But with Coppedge facing cross-examination on Wednesday, JPL lawyers laid out a history of complaints about Coppedge's work that had nothing to do with religion or politics.
...
Zapp asked Coppedge about a March 2004 meeting where Cassini project supervisors Greg Chin and Clark Burgess told Coppedge that co-workers complained he was stubborn and difficult.

“Office managers thought you were uncooperative, and Mr. Chin told you that some of the office managers on Cassini were even asking that you be removed, is that correct?” Zapp asked.

Coppedge said his own notes from the meeting confirmed the topic had been raised.

“[Chin] reported that members of my own team had expressed the same concerns, that I appeared too opinionated or unwilling to listen,” Coppedge said.

On Wednesday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ernest Hiroshige told Coppedge several times to give yes or no responses to Zapp's questions, rather than adding commentary.
...

Full: GlendaleNewsPress.com

 

[Bob Klase]

Sorry, you read my meaning backwards.

In the context of the Dover trial, Intelligent design advocates were eager to have us believe ID was science. In the context of the Coppedge trial, intelligent design advocates are eager to have us believe ID is religion.

You are correct. It seems I took your intent the opposite of what you intended. Sorry.

 

[Questioninggeller]

This seems to be the only news report, including Discovery Institute press releases, on the trial in the last week, but it has only a few new details:

JPL, former employee fight over religion in science
By Brian Charles, Staff Writer
DailyNews.com
April 2, 2012

...
Coppedge, a darling of the creationist/intelligent design community, runs a creationist blog. He has been a member of the Bible Science Association for more than 20 years, according to Coppedge's own testimony.

"Through his links to Bible science groups it's clear to see the linkages to creation science and intelligence design," Rosenau said.

JPL supervisors told Coppedge to cease distributing the DVDs, which the agency viewed as religious in nature. He was also told to avoid engaging co-workers in political and religious dialogue during work hours.

Since the civil trial kicked off March 12, Coppedge has testified that his JPL supervisors reacted with hostility to his open expression of his political and religious beliefs and influenced their reviews of his performance at the lab.
...
JPL denies Coppedge's claims and the lab's attorneys have presented evidence to bolster their claim that Coppedge was a problem employee. They also argue that Coppedge's layoff was part of a normal reduction in force called for in NASA's budget.

With 21 witnesses to call, the case is expected to last several weeks. But, when Judge Ernest Hiroshige renders his decision, the announcement will resonate far beyond the walls of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, according to advocates for both evolutionary theory and intelligent design.
...
The conservative Discovery Institute has skin in the game, too. Josh Youngkin, a Discovery Institute staff attorney, is assisting attorney William J. Becker Jr. in Coppedge's lawsuit. And Becker himself is an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian advocacy group.
...

Full: DailyNews.com

 

[Questioninggeller]

The trial must been dealing less with political/religious issues and more with human resources concerns, judging from the lack of news stories and the Discovery Institute reports about the case. Surely if there were some proof of Coppedge's claims discussed in court the Institute would have been sending press releases about it, and there would be as many stories published as there was when the trial started.

Here's two recent articles from the past week:

Fired JPL worker's skills questioned
Former supervisor testifies that other workers had to fix 'sloppy mistakes.'
Valley Sun
By Daniel Siegal
April 01, 2012


A Jet Propulsion Laboratory manager offered testimony this week that appeared to undermine former JPL worker David Coppedge's claim that he was let go from the rocket science lab because of his belief in the intelligent design of the universe.
...
On Thursday, JPL manager Greg Chin laid out the specific complaints that he addressed with Coppedge prior to Coppedge's dismissal in 2011.

Chin said Nick Patel, who replaced Coppedge as the informal “team lead” for the information systems support office on NASA's Cassini mission to Saturn, had reported, “There were several sloppy mistakes other [administrators] had to fix.”
...
As his technical competency was questioned, Coppedge's ability to get along with co-workers also was called into question.

James Zapp, JPL's lead attorney, questioned Chin about notes he had made before meeting with Coppedge in 2009 that said co-workers had lost confidence in Coppedge.

“I had conversations with office managers, various customers, looked to find their opinions; and some of them just did not want to work with David,” Chin testified.
...

Full: Valley Sun

JPL 'intelligent design' trial coming to a close
Economist to be called as a witness for the lab next week.
Valley Sun
By Daniel Siegal
April 7, 2012


Closing arguments may take place next week in the case of a former Jet Propulsion Laboratory worker who claims he was fired for his advocacy of the theory of intelligent design of the universe.

David Coppedge, a former systems administrator on JPL's Cassini mission to Saturn, is seeking unspecified damages, though an expert witness called on his behalf estimated Coppedge is entitled to about $850,000 in lost and potential wages, according to attorney William Becker. Coppedge also is seeking an unspecified amount for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
...
Earlier this week Becker and James Zapp, the lead attorney for JPL, argued over the witnesses JPL could call in an attempt to refute Coppedge's claim.

“They can come in with 90 people who will say my client is a bum, but the documentary evidence doesn't hold up,” Becker said.

Zapp said the witnesses would bolster testimony offered earlier in the case that Coppedge had earned a reputation within JPL as a stubborn and uncooperative co-worker.

One of JPL's remaining witnesses is economist Michael Ward, who Zapp said will counter the $850,000 figure offered by Coppedge's economic expert, Ted Vavoulis.
...

Full: Valley Sun

 

[Questioninggeller]

Journalists and the Discovery Institute have not been writing about the on-going trial, but it seems that Coppedge is having a hard time proving his case. Usually you don't ask for a new trial if you think you're going to win.

The court filings, posted by the NCSE are here.

What grounds does Coppedge want a new trial? A JPL worker revealed that their staff were ranked every year, and Coppedge was ranked low. Coppedge claims that these were hidden from him and there should be a new trial.

According to Coppedge's motion to exclude employee's ranking claiming Coppedge should have received the documents, but was not given any (See: "4/9/12: Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 7 to exclude Employee Performance Ranking Records"):

On April 2, 2012, Kevin Klenk testified about a “forced ranking system” for compensation purposes.
...
Klenk testified that between 2007 and 2009, Plaintiff [Coppedge] ranked in the lower half of all section employees.
...
On cross examination, Klenk testified that the ranking of employees was recorded in written form produced annually. These documents were never produced in response to discovery requests, even though they would have been evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory, non-pretextual reason for adverse employment actions taken against Plaintiff.
...

According to the JPL, in the opposition to Coppedge’s Motion in Limine #7 from April 10th:

Coppedge’s Motion in Limine #7 is nothing more than a feeble attempt to utilize an unobjectionable portion of testimony as grounds to obtain a new trial that Coppedge already believes he will need. The testimony in question — former Section Manager Kevin Klenk’s description of departmental rankings used for compensation purposes, explanation that Coppedge ranked in the lower half, and reference to written documentation of those rankings — was never called for by any of Coppedge’s discovery requests or deposition questions.
...
Finally, the compensation rankings were not among those responsive documents; while the compensation rankings corroborate the layoff rankings, they were not considered in the layoff process and thus do not constitute evidence that Caltech took the actions it did (i.e. laying off Coppedge) for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
...
Second, setting aside the fact that Coppedge never requested the compensation rankings, he suffered no prejudice from the fact that Caltech did not provide them in the discovery process, because they are not evidence on which Caltech contends it based any of the decisions in this case.
...

More analysis on this blog.


Before this filing, Coppedge filed a motion "to exclude Cumulative & Irrelevant Witnesses" (4/4/12: Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 6). These "irrelevant witnesses" are 12 people who worked with or supervised him. Coppedge's filing says they are irrelevant and it will take too much time for them to testify.