Anonymous wrote:It's not just a "brunch," which implies some light social function. According to the OP, it was a mandatory meeting (or at least she understood it as mandatory) with food, conducted in the office with 100% participation. Not at all the same as going out to lunch with some office buddies. I too think this falls clearly within the prohibited type of meeting cited in the link -- because when you appear to force everyone to do it, it has the appearance of official government sanction. That crosses the line. It might be different if the supervisor had said, "Ok, OP, you are new here so you may not know that we all get together to pray -- we welcome your participation but of course you should feel free to step out or not bow your head if you please." But unless OP says otherwise, there is no indication that that happened.
I would bring it up with the boss -- say "hey, I wasn't comfortable with this, do you mind if I'm excused in the future." If he says sure, leave it there. If he doesn't take it well, then I'd report it to the IG.
Anonymous wrote:I am genuinely wondering if the food was purchased through OP's agency. If so, can you share your secret? We can't even get refreshments covered at all-day meetings! Sorry, folks, but you'll have to leave the room to get some coffee/water.
Maybe all that praying for brunch worked out...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a reasonable observer, I cannot conclude that the prayer was not officially endorsed. Sounds like OP agrees.
A supervisor leading prayer is not in and of itself an official endorsement. Read that entire link to understand the concept. Personally I would never lead or participate in prayer in the workplace because it's just a line I'm not comfortable crossing, but it's really hard to see in this situation that "Come to brunch" + supervisor-led prayer = official endorsement of religion.
I DID read the entire link. Just because I don't agree with you or have the same perspective on how these rules should be interpreted in practice does not mean that I have not done my homework here. The rules indicate that the burden is on the praying people to make it absolutely clear that under no circumstance, someone would reasonably assume that the prayer/beliefs are officially endorsed.
Regardless, the employees used government resources (time, and maybe funding for the food) to proselytize.
Employees are permitted to engage in religious expression directed at fellow employees, and may even attempt to persuade fellow employees of the correctness of their religious views, to the same extent as those employees may engage in comparable speech not involving religion. Some religions encourage adherents to spread the faith at every opportunity, a duty that can encompass the adherent's workplace. As a general matter, proselytizing is as entitled to constitutional protection as any other form of speech -- as long as a reasonable observer would not interpret the expression as government endorsement of religion.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a reasonable observer, I cannot conclude that the prayer was not officially endorsed. Sounds like OP agrees.
A supervisor leading prayer is not in and of itself an official endorsement. Read that entire link to understand the concept. Personally I would never lead or participate in prayer in the workplace because it's just a line I'm not comfortable crossing, but it's really hard to see in this situation that "Come to brunch" + supervisor-led prayer = official endorsement of religion.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Were you "rounded up" or invited? Big difference. Was it framed as a meeting for all staff or were you told you were welcome to join in?
OP here: I took it as "rounded up" as everyone in the division was there and I was told "we're meeting in the conference room." When I started to grab a pen and pad, they said you won't need that, we're having "brunch." Apparently they have this every month. The main purpose was not to pray, but to eat the brunch and hang out. Yes, this is part of the work hours for everyone. The praying part happened first.
It is interesting that someone mentioned racism. I don't know if it changes anything, but I was the only white person in the group of 20. I think it was a cultural difference that I was not accustomed to in previous work environments, but it made me feel like I wouldn't fit in.
Anonymous wrote:As a reasonable observer, I cannot conclude that the prayer was not officially endorsed. Sounds like OP agrees.