Religious Discrimination Suit Filed By Former Dave Ramsey Employee Dismissed For Lack Of Merit

Image Credit: Ramsey Solutions / Facebook

The Tennessee Conservative [By Kelly M. Jackson] –

On Wednesday December 13^th, a lawsuit filed against The Lampo Group, also known as the company that encapsulates Ramsey Solutions, by a former employee was dismissed by the 6^th Circuit Court and Judge Eli Richardson for failing to meet the legal standard required to prove their case. 

There were 6 counts in the suit that were addressed in Judge Richardson’s decision, which alleged three main issues.

First, that Lampo and Ramsey dismissed Amos unfairly because Amos was rejecting the company’s religious beliefs over his own with regard to the COVID pandemic.

Second, that Amos was terminated out of retribution for refusing to stay silent about “illegal activities” at the company.

And third, that Ramsey Solutions made statements about the company to Amos that weren’t factually true in order to successfully recruit him. 

The decision states that the court requested a succinct explanation, or what is called a “brief” of the plaintiffs allegations including concise arguments with notations to case precedent. What the court received was a document with nearly 400 paragraphs of information, none of which were found to be legally substantive enough to meet the standard required to satisfy each allegation. 

The lawsuit was born from the COVID pandemic and the response that many grassroots organizations in the state of Tennessee considered egregious demonstrations of government overreach.

Dave Ramsey, well-known as an evangelical Christian, supported the assertion made by many grassroots advocates at the time, that government agencies had no right to dictate to private businesses the way in which they should chose to operate during the “state of emergency” that never seemed to end. 

Thus, in May of 2020, Ramsey called all employees back to the office to conduct business as usual.

It was at this time that Amos refused, basing his decision, according to the suit, on his religious beliefs and his belief that returning to the office would constitute a violation of the law due to the mandates that were issued by local public health authorities and Governor Lee’s office. 

Amos was subsequently released from his employment, and thus filed a lawsuit. 

This past week, it was determined by the court that his three major claims, that of being discriminated against for his religious beliefs, his termination being the result of his refusal to comply with “illegal activity and his acceptance of a job with Ramsey based on fraudulent promises upon which he relied to his detriment, were not proven. 

First, Amos claimed that his belief that keeping his family safe from COVID was an inherently Christian belief, and therefore to deny him the right to act in a way that reflected those beliefs was to deny him his religious liberties and thus discrimination. 

The court disagreed stating, “Plaintiff’s claim fails outright because, despite any efforts by him to finesse this, he is actually alleging a conflict between Lampo’s required course of conduct and Plaintiff’s desired course of conduct. The conflict alleged is not of the required kind-i.e., a conflict between Lampo’s required course of conduct and some religious belief of Plaintiff-and this is true even if Plaintiff’s religious beliefs are what inclined him towards the course of conduct that was in conflict with Lampo’s requirement. This alone is fatal to any claim of religious discrimination.”

Next, Amos attempted to prove that his termination was unfair because of his “refusal to participate in and/or refusal to remain silent about Lampo’s requiring nonessential workers to be present in their office against state-mandated COVID-19 ‘stay at home’, mask, and social distancing precautions.” The TPPA provides that “no employee shall be discharged or terminated solely for refusing to participate in, or for refusing to remain silent about, illegal activities.”

The court again disagreed because the “activities” that Amos is referring to were not actually illegal.

While the mandates were conveyed by government and the media to have the weight and force of law, they in fact only were “recommendations” and therefore non-compliance would not be considered a violation of law. 

The court gave some benefit of the doubt in stating “Perhaps out of an abundance of caution, Lampo is content to concede that “illegal activities” include not only activities that actually were illegal, but also activities the plaintiff reasonably believed to be illegal (even if they were not illegal).  The Court is not so sure; the statute itself does not suggest that protection extends to resistance to activities that are not actually illegal. The standard recitation of elements for a TPPA claim likewise does not suggest this possibility.” 

Finally, to the question of recruiting Amos under false pretenses, to the degree that Amos relied on statements made to him by Ramsey, to his detriment. This is a concept in contract law known as promissory estoppel.  

Amos is basing his claim on six statements that were made to him over the course of his job application process with Ramsey Solutions. The statements mentioned in the suit include phrases like a workplace that is “family friendly” and “drama free” or “not cult-like” all of which do not meet the standard of promises that are enforceable, but rather statements of opinion. 

The issue is whether or not the statements made, rather than duties enumerated in an employment contract, could have possibly induced “reasonable reliance”.  

Lampo argued “a reasonable person would not have relied upon those six statements to make the weighty decision to relocate his entire family from California to Tennessee for an at-will position that paid $150,000 less than his job in California.”

The court agreed. 

Because the court was able to dismantle the arguments made by the plaintiff’s attorneys one by one, based on the law and court precedent, the court determined the suit would not survive past the current stage and it was dismissed. 

It is worth mentioning that all six counts of the suit were dismissed, not on a technicality such as lack of standing, but rather due to a lack of substantive merit. 

About the Author: Kelly Jackson is a recent escapee from corporate America, and a California refugee to Tennessee. Christ follower, Wife and Mom of three amazing teenagers. She has a BA in Comm from Point Loma Nazarene University, and has a background in law enforcement and human resources. Since the summer of 2020, she has spent any and all free time in the trenches with local grassroots orgs, including Mom’s for Liberty Williamson County and Tennessee Stands as a core member.  Outspoken advocate for parents rights, medical freedom, and individual liberty. Kelly can be reached at kelly@tennesseeconservativenews.com.