Liberty Counsel filed an amended lawsuit against the New York-based Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc., on behalf of clinical research specialist Markland Hamilton, who has been subjected to a hostile work environment over his sex and religion. Filed last May in federal district court, Hamilton’s amended complaint states that his employer, also known as Siemens Healthineers AG, has consistently since 2019 denied him promotion and equitable pay raises, subjected him to hostile commentary, and retaliated against him for protesting these actions all because he is a male and a committed Catholic.

Under Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law, Hamilton is seeking a judgment that grants him an equitable pay raise, promotion, compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Hamilton, a black man from Jamaica, states in the lawsuit that Siemens’ “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives are incompatible with his faith tradition and gender. At Siemens, the lawsuit contends “there is a palpable, unabashed culture of praise for and solidarity with the homosexual and transgender movement.” However, as a Catholic, Hamilton does not participate in this celebration and has been subjected to regular ridicule, mocking, and harassing conduct from his largely female management chain. Named in the lawsuit from that supervisory chain is Sabine von Sengbusch, former head of the company and a lesbian, who is alleged to have directed Hamilton’s hostile treatment and sought a course to bring about his resignation.

The strength of Hamilton’s convictions became known during the COVID-19 pandemic when he requested a religious accommodation to the company’s shot mandate. He was granted a temporary accommodation for 90 days, and began working remotely like all other employees. At the end of the accommodation period, Hamilton was initially denied leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act and faced being fired for upholding his sincerely held religious beliefs by not getting the COVID shot. However, the company dropped its shot mandate shortly thereafter, and his supervisors ordered his return to the office full time while letting everyone else work remotely—a clearly retaliatory move when Hamilton did not resign as his supervisors intended, said the lawsuit.

Despite his exemplary 15-year employment record with the company, and his qualifications meriting promotion, Hamilton’s former female subordinate was also promoted to a position above him—a “leapfrogging” situation approved by his chain of female superiors of which no other employee has suffered. After filing complaints with Human Resources, Hamilton’s supervisor further retaliated by effectively demoting him with decreased responsibilities and assigned menial tasks. 

Rather than focusing on performance, merit, and qualifications, the lawsuit noted that the work culture favors groups expressing “non-traditional sexual orientation or gender identity” and is hostile to religious beliefs that conflict with those expressions.

“No other employee is subjected to the hostility, retaliation or other blatantly unfavorable treatment suffered by [Hamilton],” stated the lawsuit. Siemens’ disparate treatment has “pervaded every aspect” of “his job and only his job”—employment, salary, job requirements, and responsibilities—solely on the basis of “sex, religious beliefs, and unlawful retaliatory motives.” 

Siemens has filed a motion to dismiss most of Hamilton’s claims citing that he has failed to establish a connection between his treatment and his religion. However, Liberty Counsel argues in an opposition brief that the case should proceed because the evidence all together creates a “mosaic” sufficient to claim that the disdain and hostility displayed toward Hamilton was religious discrimination. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Employers cannot treat an employee differently because of their religion. Siemens’ discriminatory animus towards Markland Hamilton was on account of his Catholic beliefs.”