Peterson v. Wilmur Communications, Inc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
205 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (2002)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Christopher Peterson (plaintiff) was a member and minister of the World Church of the Creator, which preached Creativity. Creativity’s central tenet was White supremacy. It advocated a utopian White society that could be established only by the degradation of all non-White persons. As a minister, Peterson took an oath to promote Creativity in his everyday practices. Peterson worked for Wilmur Communications, Inc. (Wilmur) (defendant), supervising eight telemarketers, three of whom were not White. In March 2000, an article about the World Church of the Creator appeared in a Milwaukee newspaper. The article featured an interview with Peterson describing his beliefs and church involvement. The next day, Wilmur’s president suspended Peterson. Peterson then received a letter from the president stating that Peterson was being demoted to a nonsupervisory role because, after the article, employees could not have confidence in Peterson’s objectivity when comparing White and non-White employees. Peterson, who had no history of difficulty managing non-White employees, sued Wilmur, alleging that his demotion constituted religious discrimination violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Both sides moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Adelman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
