Chick-Fil-A Sued By Employee Who Was Fired So She Could Be ‘Stay Home’ Mom

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

Well, who could have seen this coming? Brenda Honeycutt was an employee at the Duluth, Georgia, Chick-Fil-A, when, according to the complaint,  her supervisor, Jeff Howard, fired her so she could be a “stay home” mother. Honeycutt was promoted to General Manager by the previous management and performed her duties in a satisfactory or above satisfactory manner, according to the complaint filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Dan Cathy, president and CEO of Chick-fil-A, recently said he operates his organization “on biblical principles.”

Stay-at-home mothering is a biblical principle:

Titus 2:4-5  and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

1 Timothy 5:14  Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach;

The complaint claims that during Honeycutt’s employment, Howard “routinely made comments to the Plaintiff suggesting that as a mother she should stay home with her children.” Howard’s pattern of behavior is an inevitable result of allowing your organization to be run “on biblical principles.”

The complaint also alleges a pattern of demoting high-level female employees and placing male employees in those positions. This may prove especially troubling to jurors if it goes that far. The prospect of a long parade of female witnesses testifying about demotions in favor of male colleagues, should persuade the defendants to settle this case.

Honeycutt is represented by K. Prabhaker Reddy of Suwanee, Georgia.

H/T: The New Civil Rights Movement.

54 thoughts on “Chick-Fil-A Sued By Employee Who Was Fired So She Could Be ‘Stay Home’ Mom”

  1. I was supposed to have an interview with them today and I didn’t even get to have it because I was told they could not hire anyone with Tattoos….

  2. He runs his company on biblical principles; I fertilize crops with them. #seewhatididthere

  3. You write nice blog posts. It’s unfortunate that more people aren’t reading them. You should look into improving your site’s SEO a little more to get the amount of visitors you deserve. There is a good WordPress plugin known as SeoPressor that can help you out a lot. To read more on it simply click on my name or go to this url: I hope this helps you and keep up the great work! <3

  4. Dan Cathy, first of all, has a right to his opinion, and it doesn’t reflect the opinions of every chick-fil-a franchisee out there. Second, where I do agree that what this man did was wrong by firing her to be a stay at home, that just because the Cathy family runs THEIR business based on “biblical principle” I think it’s wrong for you to just assume that Dan Cathy was supportive of the action this one man took.

  5. mespo727272

    Like I said earlier you quoted Ephesians 2: 10 but forgot 8-9. If we could work to get to heaven then it would take the place of what Christ did on the cross. Without quoting 100’s of verses just look at John 3:16 and clearly all glory is in the son and not on us.

  6. (CNN) — Gay rights activists are planning to hold on Friday a “national same-sex kiss day at Chick-fil-A,” the restaurant chain whose president’s opposition to same-sex marriage sparked a media frenzy.

    “Let’s show Chick-fil-A thanks for their support of Love, Equality, and the Real Definition of Marriage!” organizers posted on their Facebook page.

    Same-sex couples are expected to arrive at restaurants across the country and kiss in protest, then post video or photos of the event on social media.

  7. Now the judges are joining in

    Three Rulings Against Women’s Rights

    By The New York Times | Editorial

    01 August 12

    t a time when abortion rights and women’s access to affordable contraception are threatened by political attacks, judges in three newly decided federal cases failed to preserve constitutional protections for women.

    On Monday, Judge James Teilborg of the United States District Court in Phoenix upheld an Arizona law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer in April that bans all abortion procedures at 20 weeks from a woman’s last menstrual period, which is about 18 weeks after fertilization.

    It is the most aggressive of the previability abortion bans passed recently by a handful of states. It defies binding Supreme Court precedent that prevents states from banning abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb, which generally occurs at about 24 weeks.

    To get around that pesky barrier, Judge Teilborg erroneously characterized Arizona’s outright ban as a permissible “regulation” that limits only “some” previability abortions. To make that argument, he relied, in part, on the fact that the ban contains a dangerously narrow exception for a “medical emergency.”

    The judge also found the state had valid reason to enact the statute, embracing medically dubious claims about when a fetus can begin to feel pain. He was dismissive of realistic concerns that the law endangers women who develop life- or health-threatening medical problems late in pregnancy and that severe fetal abnormalities sometimes cannot be diagnosed before 20 weeks.

    An emergency appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking to stop the law from taking effect on Thursday should be granted.

    In United States District Court in Denver on Friday, Judge John Kane issued a temporary injunction forbidding the Obama administration from requiring a secular, for-profit heating, ventilation and air-conditioning company from complying with the new requirement that it provide employees with contraceptive coverage.

    There is no constitutional precedent for individuals, much less corporations, allowing them to violate generally applicable laws because they may have a religious objection. Conversely, the company’s claim that its owners or officers have a First Amendment right to impose their personal religious beliefs on the corporation’s employees is groundless. The health insurance mandate does not place a substantial burden on religious exercise, so a federal statute protecting such exercise should not be in play.

    The Justice Department argued that the notion of a religious freedom violation should be dismissed, but, disappointingly, Judge Kane declined to do so.

    The third ruling was a decision last Tuesday by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis. The court, sitting en banc, upheld, by a 7-to-4 vote, a 2005 South Dakota law requiring doctors to misinform women seeking an abortion that they face an increased risk of suicide and suicidal thoughts if they go ahead. This dreadful ruling ignores the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence.

  8. I just love it that the Tea Party got behind Cruz…… Not only is he an Attorney…. But Hispanic….. Of Cuban heritage….. But an immigrant to the US….. You got to thank Greg Abbott an Attorney General for Texas……

Comments are closed.