Couple fired for being 'too religious' settle

The artwork that got the Dixons fired

A Georgia couple who lost their job managing government-subsidized apartments because they were "too religious" have reached a settlement.

According to Liberty Counsel, which worked on the case of Daniel and Sharon Dixon, the settlement is $76,250.

"I am pleased that Daniel and Sharon Dixon can move forward, with this religious discrimination action behind them. It is wrong to fire or evict someone because they are Christians," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.

The law firm's statement today noted that the "first and foremost right protected in our Constitution is that of religious expression and liberty."

"It is great that the Hallmark Management Company recognized this and is compensating the Dixons for violating their rights," the statement said. "It is completely unacceptable for a company, especially one that is subsidized by the federal government, to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs. When employers mistakenly think they can discriminate against religious expression, it can prove to be a costly mistake."

Liberty Counsel pointed out that Hallmark Management is unrelated to the greeting card company.

The settlement came about after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered the case to go to a jury.

The dispute originated with a floral image on the wall with a reference to the Bible's encouragement to "Consider the lilies."

The Dixons brought the lawsuit after they were ordered by a supervisor for The Hallmark Companies and Hallmark Management, which own and run the Thornwood Terrace Apartments, to remove the art from an office wall.

Their supervisor had ordered the image removed then removed it herself. She told the couple, "You're fired, too. You're too religious." The Dixons sued over the apparent religious discrimination.

WND originally reported in 2008 when the circumstances that prompted the couple's lawsuit developed.

The Dixons had managed a complex in Lake City, Fla., for eight years. They lived in the complex as part of their compensation. From before their tenure, displayed in the apartment complex's management office was a stained glass depiction of flowers with the words "Consider the lilies … Matthew 6:28."

But according to reports, a regional company executive, Christina Saunders, visited the complex in anticipation of a government inspection and saw the glass artwork. Liberty Counsel said Saunders asked Sharon Dixon if the words on the artwork referenced the Bible.

When Sharon Dixon confirmed they did, Saunders instructed her to take down the artwork. Dixon replied that she needed to consult her husband and co-manager and left the office to find him.

When the couple returned, Saunders had already removed the artwork, entered the Dixons' apartment without their permission and deposited the piece there. According to the law firm, she then said the Dixons were "too religious," fired them and demanded they vacate their apartment within 72 hours.

A district court dismissed the complaint, but the 11th Circuit Court said the supervisor's remark about religion must be considered.

"Direct evidence of discrimination is 'evidence that, if believed, prove the existence of a fact without inference or presumption,'" the ruling said.

The lower court's decision to presume the remark was not discrimination "overlooks 11th Circuit precedent characterizing comparable remarks as direct evidence of discrimination," the appeals court said.

"Most notably, we have held that … saying, 'Fire Early – he is too old' constitutes direct evidence of discrimination," the court said. "A scrap of paper saying 'Fire Rollins – she is too old' is direct evidence of discrimination.

"A reasonable jury could find that Saunders's alleged comment constitutes direct evidence of religious discrimination. Because the Dixons have raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether Hallmark intentionally discriminated against them on the basis of their religious beliefs, we conclude that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on this claim."

Earlier, when the conflict developed, the Agency for Workforce Innovation ruled in favor of the Dixons' request for unemployment compensation, finding the termination was not based on job performance.