This AP story reports:
A former cashier for The Home Depot who has been wearing a “One nation under God” button on his work apron for more than a year has been fired, he says because of the religious reference….The American flag button Keezer wore in the Florida store since March 2008 says “One nation under God, indivisible.”
Earlier this month, he began bringing a Bible to read during his lunch break at the store in the rural town of Okeechobee, about 140 miles north of Miami. That’s when he says The Home Depot management told him he would have to remove the button.
Keezer refused, and he was fired on Oct. 23, he said….
A Home Depot spokesman said Keezer was fired because he violated the company’s dress code.
“This associate chose to wear a button that expressed his religious beliefs. The issue is not whether or not we agree with the message on the button,” Craig Fishel said. “That’s not our place to say, which is exactly why we have a blanket policy, which is long-standing and well-communicated to our associates, that only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons.”
If, as Home Depot says, Keezer was fired because only company-provided pins and badges could be worn, then that’s not religious discrimination as such. The question is whether it would be a violation of an employer’s duty (under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) to provide reasonable religious accommodations — to (1) give religious employees special exemptions from generally applicable job requirements (2) if the requirements interfere with an employee’s “religious observance and practice” and (3) such an exemption doesn’t impose “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).
My sense is that Keezer does not view the button as religious observance and practice, but rather sees it as a political statement (albeit one with an appeal to religion within it). And an employer only has to reasonably accommodate religious practices — or perhaps deeply felt conscientious obligations — and then only when they have been so represented to the employer when the employee asked for the accommodation. So Home Depot is probably off the hook. Home Depot may have to accommodate the wearing of a yarmulke, a beard, or an unobtrusive cross necklace, even if such behavior would violate neutral grooming rules. (I say “unobtrusive,” because at some point Home Depot might plausibly argue that accommodating religious displays will pose an undue hardship; and some employers, such a police department, might argue the same even with modest such displays, see, e.g., Daniels v. City of Arlington (5th Cir. 2001).) But it need not do the same for items, even those that mention God, if they don’t constitute religious observances or practices.
On the other hand, if Keezer was really fired because he was reading the Bible (which seems unlikely), then that likely would be outright discrimination based on religious practice, and thus a Title VII violation.
ShelbyC says:
Of course, if Keezer can show that they let other folks wear pins…
October 28, 2009, 8:04 pmChrisTS says:
As I understand the “religious observance and practice” consideration, there has to be at least some evidence that the practice/observance is required by or central to the religion.
In other words, my conviction that wearing an X button does not suffice for protected observance unless my religious group generally treats wearing X buttons as significant.
October 28, 2009, 8:05 pmArt Eclectic says:
I’m sure I’ll be in the minority here, but when I walk into a retail or services establishment, I’m not interested in the religious beliefs of the person who has been hired to assist me. A piece of jewelery is one thing. Religious advertising on the company uniform is a whole separate matter. If someone in an orange apron walks up to me at HD with any religious symbolism on their uniform, first thing I’m thinking is “I can’t believe management is letting that slide.” I don’t see any business allowing their employees to make any statements – especially political or religious ones – on their uniforms.
Home Depot allows their people to wear award badges, pins and buttons as they pertain to the business of Home Depot. I’ve seen manufacturer pins and buttons all the time.
October 28, 2009, 8:26 pmkimsch says:
Although he had apparently been wearing the pin for over a year with no problems and was only told to stop wearing it after he had brought a bible to work…
October 28, 2009, 8:28 pmDr. Weevil says:
Art Eclectic:
October 28, 2009, 8:45 pmI was nodding my head in agreement until I saw that you were saying exactly the opposite of what I thought you were saying. When I walk into a retail or services establishment, I’m not interested in the religious (or political or social) beliefs of the person who has been hired to assist me, and therefore don’t give a damn (excuse the blasphemy) if someone wears a small cross, or crescent, or star of David, or shamrock with “kiss me, I’m Irish” label (unless they act like they actually expect a kiss), or rainbow ribbon, or flag of any nation this side of North Korea, or silver baby-feet (anti-abortion) symbol or just about anything this side of a swastika. Even a swastika wouldn’t bother me much on someone who looked like an American or Asian Indian wearing it for religious rather than Nazi reasons. Nor do I much care about any tattoos employees may have if they are not obscene or extraordinarily tasteless. It appears that you are in fact interested in what employees wear. Why is that?
Douglas2 says:
The facts seem to show that the pin was worn and was not an issue for some time, and that he was only reprimanded about it after he started to bring and read a bible at break.
We can’t know that there was necessarily any link between notice of his personal reading on break (which they cannot use as grounds for dismissal) and the sudden decision to enforce the dress code.
I would have thought the accommodations proposed by his managers so that he would be within the dress code were reasonable, but I’m not him.
So on the one hand, he was given a direct instruction to comply with an established policy and he did not, so his firing is entirely correct.
On the other hand, that policy was not enforced until management noticed other activity (which is constitutionally protected), at which point they selectively chose to enforce the pin-policy. So it looks like this selective enforcement is really a way to discriminate against him on the basis of his religion.
He’ll have to prove the non-enforcement, that he wore the badge for a long time, and it would help him if he could demonstrate that managers had some animus against his type of religion, I would imagine.
October 28, 2009, 8:46 pmDr, Caligari says:
I was surprised to see the button read “One nation under God, indivisible”. If you wanted a religious message why not just the first 4 words; “One nation under God”. As I understand it the “indivisible” means “no more secession.” When Francis Bellamy wrote the first version of the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892 the clause was “one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” This was less than a generation after the conclusion of the Civil War and the presence of the word “indivisble” can scarcely be interpreted as anything other than a repudiation of secession. The “under God” was added by Congress in 1954, apparantly out of a Cold War fear that the orginal pledge was too secular.
Then I realized that whoever designed the button thought the Pledge meant that God and the United States were “indivisible”. If you know the history of the text of the Pledge that is scarcely defensible, but I suppose it you are reading the text with no knowledge of its history (and are intensely religious) that interpretation might come to you.
October 28, 2009, 9:16 pmRandy says:
Doc: “I was nodding my head in agreement until I saw that you were saying exactly the opposite of what I thought you were saying. ”
I agree with Doc. However, if an employee starts pushing religion on me, then I take offense. Or, if the whole store seems to have employees wearing pins that say “repent or die” or stuff like that, I might be creeped out enough to never return to the place. Otherwise, I don’t care. People should have some limited right to express themselves to a certain degree where ever they might work.
It’s funny, though. Religious extremists often complain that if gay rights laws are passed, then they would have to hire males who dress as women and can’t fire them. Or if a gay man wants to wear make-up, or whatever, that they should be able to fire them.
October 28, 2009, 9:19 pmSandy MacHoots says:
I don’t see the problem. It’s Home Depot’s store and he’s on Home Depot’s time and they ought to be able to make him wear anything they want. If the owner is atheist and objects to Bible-reading, the owner ought to be able to fire the employee — just as a Catholic store owner ought to be able to fire somebody for participating in a pro-abortion rally.
We’ve started down a very perilous road when the Government starts supervising these sorts of private matters. Though (on the good side) it does make lots of work for lawyers.
October 28, 2009, 9:28 pmPerseus says:
One could also be familiar with the history of the text and deliberately pouring new wine in an old bottle.
October 28, 2009, 10:20 pmreadery says:
On the one hand, the pin doesn’t seem to be a “religious belief or practice” as such. For example, it doesn’t seem to have been required by the religion.
On the other hand, the store’s conduct seems chilling. The pin doesn’t seem to have hurt anyone or even been particularly noticable. If the store treated slight deviations from the dress code done by non-religious people less harshly, there might be a case for religious-based discrimination
October 28, 2009, 10:29 pmdisintelligentsia says:
So I suppose you’re saying the new words ruined the meaning of the old?
Matthew 9:17 (American Standard Version)
17 Neither do men put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved.
October 28, 2009, 10:53 pmCornellian says:
I’d prefer something more likely to confuse the masses, like “One Nation, A Prime Number.”
And call me a traditionalist, but I prefer the older version of the Pledge, not this newfangled one we’re stuck with now.
October 28, 2009, 11:02 pmCornellian says:
On the other hand, the store’s conduct seems chilling. The pin doesn’t seem to have hurt anyone or even been particularly noticable.
Hardly “chilling.” As someone who deals with employers every day about this kind of thing, I can tell you their major (and quite reasonable) concern is that if they let this one through they’ll be stuck having to tolerate the next guy wearing a “Satan is cool” pin worn by a guy who will insist his pin, too, isn’t hurting anyone and is barely noticeable. So they ban everything, which seems like a reasonable solution to me. You’re paid to do a job, not to advertise your political or religious opinions.
October 28, 2009, 11:08 pmProsecutorial Indiscretion says:
If they let him wear this pin against policy, would they have a leg to stand on when the satanist they unknowingly hired starts wearing buttons expressing his religious commitments?
Dangit, just saw Cornellian made the same point.
Randy, you are copacetic with certain pins expressing religious belief – but there might be issues if the store starts preferentially allowing some religious expression but not others. And I imagine you’d be less keen on shopping at Home Depot is some Westboro Baptist Church congregant showed up with his “God hates fags” button.
October 29, 2009, 12:19 amricky says:
The consensus here seems to be (1) the owner has a right to disallow religious symbols (2) as long as he treats all religions exactly the same. Why do you demand the second part? Why it it okay for the owner to ban all religion, but not okay to ban some religion? He is a private citizen after all. If he’s okay with crosses, but not pentagrams, is it really your right or the government’s right to tell him he can’t have one without the other?
October 29, 2009, 2:24 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Firing for Wearing a Personal Pin, When the Pin Says “One Nation Under God, Indivisible” -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Janette Hampshire, Sasha Price. Sasha Price said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Firing for Wearing a …: A former cashier for The Home Depot who has be.. http://bit.ly/n89iN [...]
October 29, 2009, 2:53 amDavid Schwartz says:
Can an owner really not have a rule that says that pins are not permitted with messages that offend the customers, in the sole discretion of management? (Or pins that convey messages the owner would prefer not to have associated with his business, in his sole discretion.) What is the problem with that rule?
October 29, 2009, 3:07 ampgepps says:
Much as I would prefer a world where the employer and the employee were free to arrange contracts that include or exclude whatever they can agree on….
In the world we live in, sounds like Home Depot’s off the hook. At the same time, I’d like to see him given the chance to make the case that (1) the policy had been waived in some manner during the year or so he’d worn the pin, and (2) specific statements of management or others made the “pin” a proxy for other discriminatory behavior.
Because in a world where government *has* taken every domain but the bedroom(?) into its jurisdiction, I’d at least like to see patriotic religious folk not get stomped on too summarily for their acts of petty courage.
October 29, 2009, 3:54 amCornellian says:
The consensus here seems to be (1) the owner has a right to disallow religious symbols (2) as long as he treats all religions exactly the same. Why do you demand the second part? Why it it okay for the owner to ban all religion, but not okay to ban some religion? He is a private citizen after all.
We don’t “demand” the second part, we acknowledge it because statutory (not constitutional) law prohibits discrimination by private employers against their employees because of the employee’s religion. Were that law to be repealed, then employers would be free to discriminate on the basis of religion, e.g. by posting job ads with phrases like “Jews need not apply.”
October 29, 2009, 5:06 amCato The Elder says:
Ooh, this phrasing is doubly referential — the indivisible prime number of 13 colonies! Deeeep.
October 29, 2009, 5:50 amBlue Neponset says:
He didn’t get fired for wearing the button. He got fired for refusing to remove the button from his uniform after management asked him to remove it. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
October 29, 2009, 8:20 amFloridan says:
pgepps: “I’d at least like to see patriotic religious folk not get stomped on too summarily for their acts of petty courage.”
More accurately, people who would like to be perceived as “patriotic religious folk,” since we know nothing about this person otherwise.
My question is, what is this person trying to accomplish by wearing the pin?
Show how patriotic and devout he is? No one cares.
Convince others to be more patriotic and religious? That’s not what Home Depot is paying him to do (not to mention that it requires a considerable degree of conceit for him to assume that he has some special insights into these qualities that needs to be shared with others).
Seems to me to be just another example of “playing the victim.”
October 29, 2009, 8:22 amgeokstr says:
I’d like to see Home Depot try to get away with firing an employee who refused to take off his “Allah is Great” button, or another who refused to not wear her hijab on the job.
October 29, 2009, 8:36 amfishbane says:
Seems to me to be just another example of “playing the victim.”
Bingo.
For whatever reason, this person decided that getting people talking about him and his pin was more valuable to him than the job.
Certainly his choice to make, much like it is mine to call it whiny silly look-at-me behavior.
October 29, 2009, 8:43 amJames N. Markels says:
We posted about Prof. Volokh’s post on the firm blog, and I was also troubled by the fact that the employee’s decision to bring a Bible to work was the apparent trigger to the request that he remove the pin. Doesn’t that make the pin removal a mere pretext for the termination, and shows that Home Depot does not neutrally enforce its pin policy?
October 29, 2009, 9:09 amxx says:
ChrisTS: I don’t agree. The test is sincerity of religious belief, not centrality of practice.
October 29, 2009, 9:52 amxx says:
Markels: As I think Prof. Volokh recognizes, that fact would obviously be relevant if true. It just seems exceedingly unlikely that Home Depot fired him over reading a bible.
October 29, 2009, 9:55 amDavid Schwartz says:
If the policy is intended to prevent offending customers, a completely reasonable goal, what value is it to anyone if the company robotically enforces the policy even in cases where its rationale doesn’t apply? Who exactly is that fair to?
Why have we allowed our employment law to get to the ridiculous point where employers can’t be nice, where it harms nobody for them to be so, because that’s somehow not fair to the people they aren’t nice to?
October 29, 2009, 10:20 amRandy says:
“I’d like to see Home Depot try to get away with firing an employee who refused to take off his “Allah is Great” button, or another who refused to not wear her hijab on the job.”
Not sure about the former, but the latter should certainly be okay. I often see women out in the working world wearing a hijab. from my understanding, it’s part religious, part cultural, and part personal. I suppose a close relative is the yarmulke.
October 29, 2009, 11:20 amBill Twist says:
So this guy was essentially fired for wearing unapproved flair?
October 29, 2009, 11:33 amRichard Aubrey says:
Randy.
October 29, 2009, 11:40 amGiven the recent kerfuffle at Yale University Publishing, I don’t think Home Depot would even try to get an “Allah is Great” pin removed.
It would be “cultural, not religious”, and, please don’t kill us.
Richard Aubrey says:
I recall not long ago, at IUPUI, an employee was severely sanctioned for reading a book a colleague and grievance-seeker claimed to find offensive.
October 29, 2009, 12:14 pmNote that management did not find him reading the book. It was another employee who reported it.
Which brings up the question of whether management and Keezer share the same break room and management noted the Bible and decided that something needed to be done. That being the pin issue.
Or was the Bible brought to the attention of management by another employee at roughly Keezer’s rank in the company? For what reason; claimed or real?
IANAL and thank God for that, but it strikes me that the mechanism by which management became aware of the Bible could be important, should this go any further.
egd says:
You might have a point if the amended pledge had read “One nation, under God, indivisible.” But by amending the subject “one nation” without the extra comma to be “one nation under God,” Congress clearly intended that the word “indivisible” modifies the entire subject, not the subject which was previously present.
It appears that Mr. Keezer was making a statement about statutory interpretation, not about religion, and therefore doesn’t qualify as protected speech.
October 29, 2009, 12:14 pmtroll_dc2 says:
What a lovely stew of facts.
It certainly smells like pretext. We need to know more about why his wearing of the pin was not challenged earlier.
The problem with a non-totally robotically enforced policy is that someone eventually will wear something that management really does not like but cannot get stopped. The employer will have lost control over the policy.
There are people out there who are what you might call crusaders, and they can make life hell for an employer, whether they are employees who don’t want to conform or customers who are looking to feel aggrieved. (I can recall a case in which an employer had to take action against an employee for ending transactions by saying “Have a blessed day”; this offended a customer who complained.)
October 29, 2009, 1:15 pmChrisTS says:
I thought the ‘indivisible’ might have been included as a statement of Unitarianism: one God, that’s it, no sub-personalities.
October 29, 2009, 1:23 pmJoeSixpack says:
The most amazing part of all this is that the guy couldn’t just be an adult and take off the stupid pin.
October 29, 2009, 3:27 pmMELISSA says:
Maybe I should start wearing something to work everyday that has religious affiliation so when I get fired for being an incompetent employee I can file a claim for discrimination too. :o
October 29, 2009, 4:25 pmI HATE MY JOB says:
Maybe I should start wearing something to work everyday that has religious affiliation so when I get fired for being an incompetent employee I can file a claim for discrimination too.:o
October 29, 2009, 4:28 pmRandy says:
Joe: “The most amazing part of all this is that the guy couldn’t just be an adult and take off the stupid pin.”
Perhaps he is hoping for a Carrie Prejean-type book deal.
October 29, 2009, 4:51 pmricky says:
“Were that law to be repealed, then employers would be free to discriminate on the basis of religion, e.g. by posting job ads with phrases like “Jews need not apply.””
So? The employers are the ones writing the checks. Who are you to tell them that they have to hire certain such-and-suches? We live in a society where “MUST SPEAK SPANISH” is perfectly okay, but “MUST SPEAK ENGLISH” is “discriminatory” and therefore illegal. Does that not strike you as a completely dysfunctional legal paradigm? Why must me undermine Hooters’ entire business model by forcing them to hire balding, obese old men? The “dream” of freedom and equality has turned into a tyrannical nightmare.
October 29, 2009, 4:59 pmhenry waldrop says:
I suppose then it would be acceptable for a muslim man to wear his dress to work at home depot or a muslim woman to wear her headscarf or even a burqa to work at home depot, because after all we can’t offend them or anyone one under the guise of their religion!!!!?????? Who loves yuh baby?????
October 29, 2009, 5:18 pmhenry waldrop says:
Oh yeah and by the way they do and I’ll bet Home depot would not dare even attempt it with them, just the one’s they can get away with it with!!!!!!!
October 29, 2009, 5:20 pmCJColucci says:
So? The employers are the ones writing the checks. Who are you to tell them that they have to hire certain such-and-suches? We live in a society where “MUST SPEAK SPANISH” is perfectly okay, but “MUST SPEAK ENGLISH” is “discriminatory” and therefore illegal. Does that not strike you as a completely dysfunctional legal paradigm? Why must me undermine Hooters’ entire business model by forcing them to hire balding, obese old men? The “dream” of freedom and equality has turned into a tyrannical nightmare.
Who are we? We’re the people, acting through our duly-elected representatives, passing laws within the constitutional power of the government we created. Maybe that doesn’t satisfy you, but that train has long since left the station.
October 29, 2009, 5:25 pmAnd where did you get the idea that where language competence, be it English, Spanish, or Urdu, is relevant to the job some law says an employer can’t require it? And have you been to a Hooters lately?
Baseballhead says:
That’s right! And why stop at religion? Why not discriminate by race and gender as well? Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever! Woo-hoo!!
October 29, 2009, 5:27 pmJames N. Markels says:
Joe: “The most amazing part of all this is that the guy couldn’t just be an adult and take off the stupid pin.”
One could just as easily say that it’s amazing the Home Depot manager couldn’t just be an adult and let the guy wear the pin, given that the manager had already allowed him to wear the pin every workday for over a year and a half already. It’s only when the employee brought a Bible to work that suddenly there’s a problem. If I’m the employee, I’m thinking that the pin isn’t the problem at all, and even if I take it off I’m still in for trouble down the road.
October 29, 2009, 5:50 pmDennis N says:
What about the interpretation that, by carrying the Bible, he made himself more noticeable, and the management discovered the pin that had been in plain sight, but unobserved, all along? I doubt they do uniform inspections. Negligence is a simpler, albeit less legally interesting, explanation than animus.
It’s kinda like, if you wear the marijuana leaf T-shirt, the cops are more likely to find that baggie in your pocket.
October 29, 2009, 6:10 pmricky says:
“Why not discriminate by race and gender as well?”
Why not? Why shouldn’t we be allowed to? Why must we be denied that particular freedom?
October 29, 2009, 6:20 pmricky says:
“We’re the people, acting through our duly-elected representatives, passing laws within the constitutional power of the government we created.”
First off, I’d recommend you leave out the “constitutional power” nonsense. The government coercion that you and the rest of “the people” seek to exert over your fellow citizens has absolutely no constitutional basis.
Second, simply being supported by a 51% majority doesn’t make you right. In fact, that’s the exact logic that was used to abolish slavery and Jim Crow. But suddenly, now that the “anti-racists” are in the majority, they feel that it’s perfectly okay to impose their will on everyone else. Might makes right, at least when might is on my side, eh?
October 29, 2009, 6:25 pmMartha says:
Your interpretation is not the only possibility. This comma could also be a coordinating comma (basically meaning “and”), with “indivisible” intended to modify “Nation,” just as “under God” also modifies “Nation.” Or, “indivisible” could modify “Republic,” just as “one Nation under God” modifies “Republic.” Or, “indivisible” could modify “God,” as ChrisTS points out. This sentence diagram interprets “indivisible” as modifying “nation.”
I guess the second amendment doesn’t have the only comma worth discussing around here.
October 29, 2009, 7:31 pmDavid Schwartz says:
What would prevent them from stopping it? They just say “we don’t like that, stop it”.
Sure, and that’s a trade-off you have to make when you run a business. Sometimes people will ask for things from you that you consider unreasonable (and may actually be unreasonable). Sometimes you accede because their business (whether as customer or as employee) is worth more than the cost of doing whatever they want. Other times, you stand your ground, whether on principle or pragamatically.
But I can’t find a problem in there anywhere.
If the customer demands you *do* say “have a blessed day” and your atheist employee doesn’t want to say that, then you have an interpersonal conflict. You can resolve it based on principle, pragamatism, or whatever. But I can’t see how there can be an illegal answer.
If a customer wants you to greet them only in Klingon, you can ask your employees to meet their absurd demand to try to keep their business. If the employees say “no”, then you have to make some tough choices. It may not be “fair” to all involved, but again, I can’t find a legal problem in any of this.
Demanding a formal policy be robotically enforced just prevents the business from making rational tradeoffs. What if their only customer insists on “have a blessed day” and they have one atheistic employee who refuses on purported principle to say that. They have to go out of business rather than firing him?
October 29, 2009, 7:52 pmFub says:
If you’re referring to the incident in which IUPUI’s affirmative action office reprimanded Mr. Keith John Sampson, IUPUI withdrew the letter of reprimand after both FIRE and the ACLU took action on Mr. Sampson’s behalf.
IUPUI’s Chancellor Charles Bantz later issued an apology after a column in the WSJ reignited criticism.
October 29, 2009, 8:17 pmRandy says:
“Second, simply being supported by a 51% majority doesn’t make you right.”
Damn right, Ricky. That’s *exactly* what we supporters of same sex marriage have been saying all along. Glad you agree with us!
October 29, 2009, 8:42 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Fub .
October 29, 2009, 10:13 pmYeah, I know. I followed it. The problem is not that the letter was withdrrawn. Sort of like saying being found not guilty means you didn’t go through any difficulties nor incur any expenses or have your life disrupted.
The problem is that the entire thing took place.
My point is, using that as an example, another employee complained to management. I wondered if Keezer was spotted by management reading the Bible or if another employee reported him and whether that would have a bearing on any case Keezer brings.
ricky says:
“Damn right, Ricky. That’s *exactly* what we supporters of same sex marriage have been saying all along. Glad you agree with us!”
If even half of the “same sex marriage” retards supported freedom of association, I’d probably join their “movement” out of solidarity.
October 29, 2009, 10:23 pmCJColucci says:
ricky, the adults are talking here. Don’t interrupt.
October 30, 2009, 11:11 amFriday News Roundup: Button, button; who’s got the button? « Moving Beyond Differences says:
[...] Fired for Wearing a Personal Pin (The Volokh Conspiracy) [...]
October 30, 2009, 3:04 pmRyan Waxx says:
Really? Where?
October 30, 2009, 10:10 pmlarry says:
No where does it say that he couldn’t wear the pin on his lapel collar or shirt sleeve it says company policy is only company sponsored pins may be worn on the apron. He was told the day that he was hired what he could wear on his apron and he should have been counselled the first day on the floor. His management team should all recieve counselling on the subject and read the company dress code to ensure they all understand what it says.
October 31, 2009, 11:13 amHe tried to buck the system and the system won.