Iowa man reportedly fired for wearing Bible verse t-shirts during Pride Month settles lawsuit
An Iowa man reached a settlement with his former employer this week after he claimed he was fired for wearing t-shirts with Bible verse messages during the company's celebration of LGBTQ Pride Month.
Cosby "Corey" Cunningham, a "devout, born-again Christian," filed a religious discrimination lawsuit in federal court last August against Eaton Corp, a global management company, after his firing in August 2023.
Cunningham was hired by Eaton in 2019 as a quality assurance manager, where he managed new product development of military and commercial aerospace activities before his termination, according to the lawsuit.
His lawsuit says during his employment, Eaton began "increasingly promoting" DEI and LGBTQ support in the workplace. He was allegedly required to attend multiple DEI training sessions, and says he was "singled out" during one training for disagreeing on the use of "woke" pronouns.
On June 2, 2023, Eaton initiated a "Pride Month ceremony," where a Pride flag was raised in front of its main building in support of Pride Month. Eaton's management encouraged employees to attend and wear specific colors that day to show their support for the effort. Pride t-shirts were also sold to employees, according to the lawsuit.
Cunningham said he began wearing Bible verse t-shirts that day to express his "sincerely held religious beliefs" and to "counter the views that were being coerced by the company on its employees" regarding support for LGBTQ pride.
One shirt cited Proverbs 16:18 with the text, "Pride goes before destruction, an arrogant spirit before a fall."
Another shirt read, "Taking back the rainbow —Genesis 9:13," with the verse, "I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth," on the back.
A third read, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. James 4:6."
On July 20, 2023, Cunningham was called into a meeting with Human Resources ("HR") and told that his shirt was making people "uncomfortable" and one person felt it was "inflammatory toward the LGBTQ community." He met with HR again, one week later, and requested written documentation showing which company policy he was violating by wearing the religious t-shirts.
His lawsuit claims Eaton threatened to fire him at this meeting.
The following day, he requested, in writing, a religious accommodation to wear the t-shirts, which was denied. He made a second request via a letter to HR, saying he felt he was being "attacked" by his employer over his beliefs.
In the following weeks, Cunningham says he was sent home twice after he refused to stop wearing the t-shirts. Eaton fired him on August 23, 2023, saying he had violated their "Harassment-Free Policy."
Cunningham filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Iowa Civil Rights Commission before filing his complaint in federal court in August 2024, alleging unlawful religious discrimination by Eaton.
According to Cedar Rapids-based KCRG, lawyers for Eaton argued Cunningham was not entitled to any damages because any actions taken by the company against him "were legitimate and non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory," and were based on legitimate business reasons.
The case came to a conclusion this week with Eaton and Cunningham reaching an unspecified settlement agreement out of court, according to KCRG. The case was dismissed on May 20, according to court documents.
Eaton declined Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
32 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Stocks Hit Highest Since February on Jobs Surprise
Bloomberg Television brings you the latest news and analysis leading up to the final minutes and seconds before and after the closing bell on Wall Street. Today's guests are Bloomberg Television brings you the latest news and analysis leading up to the final minutes and seconds before and after the closing bell on Wall Street. Today's guests are Katie Nixon, Northern Trust, Betsey Stevenson, University of Michigan, Dan Dolev, Mizuho, Rashad Bilal & Troy Millings, Earn Your Leisure, Matthew Griffin, Bloomberg News, Barry Bannister, Stifel, Jess Menton, Bloomberg News, Ed Ludlow, Bloomberg News, Stacy Rasgon, Bernstein Research, Frances Katzen, Douglas Elliman, Brett Winton, Ark Invest, Tony Zaccario, Stretch Zone, Nicole Camarre, 43North. (Source: Bloomberg)
Washington Post
34 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports on Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century.
New York Times
41 minutes ago
- New York Times
Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes
By Ralph D. Russo, Stewart Mandel and Justin Williams A federal judge Friday granted final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, a watershed agreement in college sports that permits schools to directly pay college athletes for the first time. The settlement, which resolves a trio of antitrust cases against the NCAA and its most powerful conferences, establishes a new 10-year revenue sharing model in college sports, with athletic departments able to distribute roughly $20.5 million in name, image and likeness (NIL) revenue to athletes over the 2025-26 season. Previously, athletes could earn NIL compensation only with outside parties, including school-affiliated donor collectives that have become instrumental in teams' recruiting. Advertisement The NCAA and the power conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC), as defendants in the settlement, also agree to pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were not allowed to sign NIL deals, dating back to 2016. The damages will be paid out over 10 years, with most of the money expected to go to former power-conference football and men's basketball players. Universities can begin directly sharing revenue with college athletes starting July 1. Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who previously ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon and Alston cases, granted approval roughly a year after parties agreed to settlement terms and nearly two months after a final approval hearing on April 7, where Wilken heard testimony from more than a dozen objectors. Lawyers for both the plaintiffs and defendants noted that the number of objections and opt-outs in the settlement represent a tiny fraction of the nearly 400,000 athletes in the certified class. However, some of those objectors delayed approval, largely citing the settlement's new roster limits. These limits, which replace sport-by-sport scholarship limits, cap the maximum roster size per team while allowing for every roster spot to receive a scholarship. Schools can offer scholarship funds — partial or full — as they see fit, which creates more potential opportunities. But as schools preemptively prepared to comply with those new limits, they removed roster spots for thousands of walk-ons, particularly in football, and partial scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. In late April, Wilken offered an ultimatum, instructing the settlement parties to revise the terms in a way that mitigated any lost roster spots as a result of schools preparing for the new roster limits, or she would deny the whole agreement. Settlement lawyers responded with an amendment that allows for voluntary 'grandfathering' of any athletes who lost roster spots as a result of the roster limits, a status that will follow those athletes through the remainder of their eligibility, whether they return to their original school or transfer elsewhere. Advertisement The initial House v. NCAA case — brought by plaintiffs Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, and Sedona Prince, then an Oregon women's basketball player — was filed in June 2020. It challenged NCAA policy at the time that prohibited athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their NIL rights or from sharing in the revenue generated from NCAA and conference television contracts. The case was later consolidated with two similar suits, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. The cases had not gone to trial. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences, fearful a verdict might result in much higher damages, agreed to a settlement in May 2024. Wilken granted preliminary approval in October 2024. The NCAA's traditional amateurism model, in which athletes could not receive any compensation beyond a scholarship, began to crumble in 2014 when Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a suit brought by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, who objected to his image being used in an EA Sports video game without his permission. Wilken ruled for the plaintiffs, but after an appeals court struck part of her decision, the only tangible effect was that schools began offering cost-of-attendance stipends. The next major case, Alston v. NCAA, made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 9-0 against the NCAA. Often mischaracterized as a case about NIL, Alston's main impact was that it allowed schools to provide athletes $5,980 a year in academic expenses. However, the lopsided decision left the NCAA vulnerable to additional legal challenges regarding rules that limited compensation, and it was delivered on June 21, 2021, nine days before numerous state laws allowing NIL payments were set to go into effect. The NCAA quickly scrapped most of its intended restrictions on NIL. In the years since, many athletes have entered into deals with local companies and struck lucrative endorsement deals with national brands like Gatorade and New Balance, as intended. But a far more common practice involves boosters using purported NIL deals to lure recruits or players from the transfer portal to their favorite school. The NCAA's enforcement division initially sought to punish schools that used NIL as a form of 'pay for play' or recruiting inducement, but when the University of Tennessee came under fire in early 2024, the state's attorney general sued, and a judge issued an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing those rules. Advertisement The amount of money being spent in the NIL arena has skyrocketed since 2021. Last year, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said the Buckeyes football team — which later won the national championship — was earning $20 million in NIL. CBS Sports recently reported that a number of men's basketball rosters have already topped $10 million for next season. To this point, collectives supporting specific schools have ruled the market, but administrators are hoping the House settlement will curtail that influence. In addition to schools being allowed to make NIL deals themselves, the new model also requires all outside NIL deals of more than $600 to go through a clearinghouse that will determine whether the payments are for a valid business purpose and reflect fair market value. Meanwhile, the settlement establishes an enforcement arm that will penalize schools that go over the $20.5 million cap. All of this will be overseen by the newly established regulatory body, called the College Sports Commission, which is in the process of shifting considerable oversight and control of college sports away from the NCAA and to the power conferences. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors recently approved a series of proposals, pending settlement approval, that will strike 153 rules from the association's handbook and clear the way for the settlement terms to be implemented. The settlement represents a significant shift in college sports, but it will not mark the end of the NCAA's legal challenges. Among numerous ongoing cases, Johnson v. NCAA was filed in 2019 in Pennsylvania and seeks to have athletes classified as employees who are entitled to minimum wage compensation. The NCAA's efforts to dismiss the case have thus far been denied. Revenue sharing and third-party NIL constraints could also invite additional lawsuits on the basis of Title IX, antitrust violations and conflicts with state laws. NCAA and power conference stakeholders continue to pursue antitrust exemptions in the form of Congressional intervention, in hopes of codifying the settlement and its effectiveness moving forward. President Donald Trump has explored a new commission focused on the issues facing college sports, led by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban and billionaire Texas Tech board chair Cody Campbell, though it is paused as members of Congress pursue legislation.
