Archives > News

Print | E-mail | Rate | Text Size

Federal suit filed for alleged religious discrimination

Thornwood Terrace Apartments of Lake City is the scene where a couple allegedly had their civil rights violated in 2007, when they were fired as apartment managers. A federal civil suit was filed Friday in Jacksonville. JEFF M. HARDISON/Lake City Reporter

Couple allegedly fired, evicted over religious beliefs.

By JEFF M. HARDISON
jhardison@lakecityreporter.com
Published: Saturday, June 21, 2008 6:11 AM EDT
A Lake City man and his wife were allegedly fired and evicted because of their religious beliefs, according to a federal suit filed Friday in Jacksonville.

Daniel and Sharon Dixon managed Thornwood Terrace Apartments in Lake City when they lost their jobs and were thrown out on the street in September 2007, according to Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law.

Liberty Counsel represents the Dixons in the case of “Dixon v. Hallmark Companies,” which is the management company for the apartment complex.

The company being sued, Hallmark Companies and Hallmark Management, should not be confused with Hallmark Real Estate of Lake City. The two are separate companies owned and operated by different individuals.


For at least eight years before they were fired and evicted, Staver said, the Dixons had a 50-inch by 25-inch piece of stained glass artwork with flowers depicted on it. The stained glass was hanging in the management office of the apartment complex where they worked.

“Consider the Lilies ... Matthew 6:28,” are the words on the stained glass, attributed to the Holy Bible, that caused the issue, Staver said.

In September 2007, according to the suit, Christina Saunders, then a regional manager for Hallmark, asked Sharon Dixon if the words on the art were from scripture. Dixon confirmed this. Saunders told her to remove the artwork, according to the suit.

Dixon replied that she would have to confer with her co-manager husband, according to the suit. Saunders reportedly consulted with her supervisor Norine Lewis, and then removed the artwork and put it in the Dixons’ apartment. Rent for the apartment was part of the compensation from Hallmark Companies and Hallmark Management, which was paid to the couple for managing the apartments, Staver said.

The couple was told the art was “too religious,” Staver said, and they were fired and told to vacate the apartment within 72 hours.

The Dixons won their state unemployment claim, where Hallmark had alleged they were fired for “misconduct,” according to records.

The suit claims Hallmark violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination against employment based on religion. The suit also alleges Hallmark violated the Dixons’ civil rights, because Title VIII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against housing based on religion.

Hallmark owns and manages the apartment complex, Staver said, and it contains units that are government-subsidized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development program. Under the USDA, Staver said, Hallmark must comply with antidiscriminatory rules related to employment and housing.

“There must be room in the inn for religious viewpoints,” Staver said.

When contacted Friday, Saunders said she was unable to comment about the allegation that Hallmark violated the civil rights of the Dixons.



Previous  
Forestry dominates Columbia County agriculture  

Article Rating

Current Rating: 4 of 2 votes!Rate File:
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of lakecityreporter.com.

Go get em wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:01 AM:

" My most sincere respect goes out to to the Dixons for their conviction to their beliefs, which are littlle seen these days. This being a Government subsidised facility, it most likely serves many who could put religion to use in their lives. Hallmark management needs to focus on more pressing issues, such as illegal activities within their housing facilities, such as illicit drugs, and stop worrying about someones religious beliefs. I would also like to compliment the Reporter, for the responsible reporting and making it clear, that Halmark realty is a seperate venture, and totally uninvolved. I have no affiliation with hallmark realty, yet do own a business, and have seen the damage that can be caused by a misunderstanding that a similarity could create. My hat is off to you all. "

Phil wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:02 AM:

" A fine case of anti-Christian bigotry.

Welcome to totalitarian Amerika. "

JSmith wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:30 AM:

" Oh My God! Please tell me this did not happen! Keep us updated.Can I even say,"Oh my God???????? "

Susan T wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:39 AM:

" There is a lot more to this story. "

Heather wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:35 PM:

" I'm disgusted by this story. We were given freedom of religion years, and years ago and yet people try to smoother it like a disease. If you display a little it's too much and is 'offensive'. But if another religion aside from Christianity is shown, oh well that's okay. I'm praying for the Dixon's! May justice be brought down by the hand of God! "

Frank wrote on Jun 22, 2008 3:06 PM:

" Susan T wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:39 AM:
" There is a lot more to this story. "

I have searched the Internet looking for more to the story. All I can find is that they had a part of a bible verse showing in the office and they were fires and evicted. and they won there unemployment case. what are we all missing? "

Brian wrote on Jun 23, 2008 6:41 AM:

" Ever notice peoples outrage when they hear one side of a story? My guess is there is more to this than meets the eye. The fact that it is a Gov. subsidized complex should clue you in to the fact that it is a violation of Federal law to display religious symbols. I bet if you watch this story you will find the twist. I wonder why there was no mention of a Rural Development investigation that would have been the first stage in a discrimination complaint. Makes you wonder "

To Brian wrote on Jun 23, 2008 12:09 PM:

" Where is this Statute? If there is such, list the statutes. "

Brian wrote on Jun 23, 2008 6:56 PM:

" To:Brian if you research "Brown V.Polk County Iowa" or Draper V Logan County Library you will see examples. Imagine you walk into what you believe to be a Gov. office and see signs of a religion that is different than yours, would you resonably assume that religion would get a preference over yours? Am I the only one who see's where this might cause problems. "

Brian wrote on Jun 23, 2008 7:03 PM:

" And no the Dixons were not denied their freedom of religion because they were still free to hold their personal beliefs. The just cannot impose it on others and displaying Christian symbols in a public office does just that. And to answer you other questions, I am not anti-Christian but the rules are the rules regardless of if we like them or not. We should all watch this and see how the lawsuit plays out in court I know I will "

RENE wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:02 PM:

" The Dixon's are not true Christians. Their behavior is a disgrace. Have they nothing else to do with their time? Move on.... you will never get anyone to respect you or your religion,,you are coming across as religious fanactics.
There is another side to this "story" the
Dixon's have created" You've gotten your 2 minutes of fame , now move on.. "

To Brian wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:48 AM:

" I walk into Public Buildings all the time. I see religious symbols as well as Biblical Scripture Quotes all over the place (as well as other religions). In Fact, go to a City Council meeting, County Commission, Planning & Zoning Board Meeting and see if they do not give an invocation and see who's name they pray in. In Jesus' name. I hardly think anything from that case is upheld. There is also NO constitutional bases being upheld in that case. The constitution DOES NOT separate church and state. That is a lie. The constitution only states that "Government shall not establish ANY LAWS against the establishment of religion". This only means that we will not prohibit freedom of religion and not separation of church and state.

Just because they had religious symbols hanging from their window does not mean they are imposing their believes on anyone.

Also, there is not RULES that establish this. I hope the Dixon's win their lawsuit. It's time that the majority stops letting the minority rule over them. This country was FOUNDED on ONE NATION UNDER GOD and FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Just because someone prays, places a religious symbol somewhere, or anything else does not mean they are forcing their religion upon anyone. Their are just stating THEIR religion. America has lost all values on which it was founded upon. I guess we can blame ourselves. "

Hallmark Real Estate wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:56 AM:

" In response to GO GET EM...Thank you so much for your pointing out that the HALLMARK REAL ESTATE here in Lake City, is NOT affiliated with the Hallmark in this article. We have gotten several calls and emails in regards to this article. The Reporter did a good job pointing out that we are not related in any way! Thanks! "

Kept Private wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:59 AM:

" Thank you Brian........ I am a manager at an apartment community and it pleases me so much to see that some people do understand the rules we are obligated to abide by. In the office we are not allowed to have any thing that may symbolize a certain religion. Such as bible verses, pics of Jesus, etc. It could offend someone that may come in that has a different belief.
Thank you again to yourself and everyone who is also looking at both sides and not just one. "

rene wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:36 PM:

" Keep religious symbols where they belong! IN THE CHURCH!!!! Next the Dixons will want to put their picture in the local MC Donalds! Again keep it in the church or the privacy of your home! You can not force your causes on others. "

honesty wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:27 AM:

" Rene and Brian please stop impossing your religious beliefs down my throat. I know that sounds strange to you but you have a view that we should keep our view private. That is a relgious view towards the display of relgion and you continue to propogate it in the context of your government jobs. I would appreciate it if you would stay logically consistant. In your mind you think the constitution does make laws in regards to relgion. You even think that its the rules. Keep your thoughts about relgious symbols where they belong in YOUR HOME! Stop forcing your anti symbolic causes down our throats.....Makes you think huh? "

Avenger wrote on Jun 28, 2008 3:10 PM:

" I am not a religious person, I do not believe in God but I am all for people having thier right to believe in what they choose. I do not, however, believe that any type of religious subject matter should be displayed in a public office. As an ex employee of the city, I took offense to the fact that prayer was stated before city hall luncheons, meetings, etc. I clearly stood in a room with other folks who had different religious beliefs and took offense as well. Why say anything...the city won't do anything about it anyway. It is just not right to do such a thing. As for the Dixons having moved the stained glass picture to their apartment, I feel that no one has any right to tell them they can't do that. That is their home, provided to them as a benefit of working at that place. It is their personal space and no ones business what they choose to display. In the main office is a NO NO. I would take offense to that.
I also do not eat at public places that display any type of religious statements and or signs. It really is a intrusion of their beliefs on other people, in my opinion. The End Timers have their own little cult community..they are taking over this area..but they sure as heck are quiet about it. Lake City is bathing in the whole god thing..and that's just what they crave. The lack of being able to face reality without a crutch of some sort. "

rene wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:54 PM:

" Honesty, HONESTLY ! Do you know all the facts? The Dixons are leading you on ,,,,,,they were not kicked to the street as they are implying They claim they worked at this office for 8 yrs and that they were discriminated against on the basis of their religion....why after 8 yrs when asked one time as they claim to remove the picture were they suddenly kicked to the streets ? We're not getting the whole truth here,,,,,,,,,let me know what homeless shelter they are residing at so i can send a contribution,,,,,,,,is'nt this what it's all about$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "

Paul wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:24 PM:

" Brian, you are a complete & utter moron when it comes to your understanding of the constitution. Best if you say nothing & let people think you are otherwise. "

Brian wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:06 PM:

" Honesty: wow where do I even begin with you? I dont think I forced my cause on anyone I merely pointed out a few facts. At no point did I mention the constitution. As for my keeping my beliefs in my own home thats exactly what I do, unlike the Dixons. I think I am very consistant in that we must follow the rules and there are rules that govern the display of religious symbols. Dont take this out on Hallmark or Ms. Saunders take it up HUD/RD Managers dont make the rules but its their job to enforce them. The photo was not in there apartment Avenger it was in the office. These people will be shown for what they are eventually. As usaual everyone belives the first version of a story. Do you research and watch this case. "

Rogi wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:03 PM:

" " Brian, you are a complete & utter moron when it comes to your understanding of the constitution. Best if you say nothing & let people think you are otherwise. "
Paul:
I, on the other hand have extensive knowledge of constitutional case law. Calling someone a moron is not an argument. Perhaps you should first point out the ways Brian erred in his interpretation of the events in relation to constitutional law. "

brian wrote on Jul 6, 2008 4:08 PM:

" would someone please tell me at what point I mentioned constitutional law? Never once did I use a quote from the constitution I understand what the founding fathers were trying to do. I would appreciate some research on everyones part instead of the knee-jerk reaction that Hallmark or Ms Saunders are to blame for the plight of the Dixons. My belief is they are responsible for it the circumstances that caused this however, are the rules put in place by OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT like it or not. Paul: not real intelligent to call someone names without any facts to contridict them. "

Return to: News « | Home « | Top of Page ^
Today's Weather
Lake City, FL
Sponsored by: