Exclusive: Harmeet Dhillon says MLB might face legal consequences for warning Giants players: 'Un-American'
The San Francisco Giants have made themselves the center of the baseball world over the last week since their Pride Night game on June 12. As they've done the past few seasons, the Giants wore specific hats with a rainbow-colored logo.
This season though, several players, in some fashion, objected. One, Sam Hentges, apparently refused to wear it at all, appearing in the traditional cap the Giants wear the other 161 games. Several others wrote Bible verses on the hat in a form of silent protest.
Starting pitcher Landen Roupp, as well as relievers Ryan Walker and J.T. Brubaker, wrote Genesis 9:12-16 on their hats. Those verses discuss the rainbow representing God's covenant. After the game, Roupp said the message was meant as a statement of his faith, "That's just kind of something I believe in, and I stand firm in that. And I'm thankful we live in a country where, you know, we have the freedom to believe what we want...and express what we want."
Except the reaction from Major League Baseball didn't seem to suggest that's true. At least for some.
The league issued a warning to the three players who wrote on their caps that any further writing would be subject to punishment. Immediately, several prominent figures noticed that this warning had seemingly not been applied to other, similar, situations where players altered uniforms to make specific statements. Particularly with pro-Black Lives Matter messages during the 2020 season.
Two of those prominent figures were Sen. Josh Hawley and Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon.
Dhillon on Tuesday posted on X about the league's warning, saying, "The USEEOC (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and state labor laws govern private employer disputes such as these. Time to lawyer up!"
Then, on Thursday, she took action. In a letter to Commissioner Rob Manfred, Dhillon said that the USEEOC will be investigating whether the league's warnings constitute religious discrimination.
"Swing and a miss!" the post reads. "Major League Baseball encouraged players to wear 'Black Lives Matter' on their uniforms but reportedly threatened Christians who write Bible verses on their hats. USEEOC will investigate whether this amounts to religious discrimination."
After the blowback to their warning, the league issued a new statement claiming that this type of warning is commonplace and not specific to the text or meaning of the writing.
"To be clear, this routine verbal warning not to wear the hat in future games is not disciplinary and had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the message," the updated statement reads. "We respect players’ right to free expression. However, writing of any kind, with any message, is prohibited per Major League Baseball’s uniform regulations which provides in part that, ‘(a) player may not write, attach, affix, embroider or otherwise display nicknames or messages on apparel or playing equipment…’
"We have given the same warning numerous times in the past to players for messages such as ‘Dad,’ ‘Happy Mother’s Day, I Love Mom’ and names of family members."
In the letter, though, Dhillon explains how MLB's conduct may have been a violation of the Civil Rights Act. And that their explanation might not stand up to scrutiny.
"The Civil Rights Act prohibits MLB and its franchises from unreasonably burdening the rights of players with religious objections to serving as the League’s vehicle for pro-Pride messages. Federal law is clear: employers must modify their uniform requirements to reasonably accommodate their employees’ exercise of religion," it reads."
"MLB has asserted that its warning to the Giants players 'had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the message' and that it merely is enforcing a policy that prohibits writing on uniforms. Yet, MLB has allowed players to wear uniform patches reading 'Black Lives Matter.' This double standard—under which players may not inscribe Bible verses on hats for one game only but may wear 'Black Lives Matter' patches for one game only—calls MLB’s true motives into question and raises serious concerns about MLB’s compliance with Title VII. Employers may not use facially neutral policies as 'a pretext for discrimination.'"
OutKick exclusively spoke to Dhillon on Friday morning about the letter, MLB's actions, and what happens next.
When asked whether she'd received a response to her letter highlighting the apparent difference in policy depending on the message in question, Dhillon said nobody from MLB has answered. And they likely won't. Though she clarified that the letter was intended to warn the league that the Civil Rights Division does not approve of how they handled this situation.
"No, and I would not expect Major League Baseball to respond to me. The reason I put out a letter is, I have parallel jurisdiction over Title VII by statute with the EEOC. We kind of share that responsibility and I focus on public employers and they focus on private employers. But I had a number of United States senators and prominent lawyers, public and private practice, reach out to me concerning this matter, and I wanted to make it clear that we disapprove of this practice, we believe it's illegal, and also that the EEOC has the primary jurisdiction over this.
"So we did refer it to the EEOC, as they have the primary jurisdiction since it's a private employer. You know, I can publicly say I referred something. The EEOC has a little different rules. They cannot say whether they're investigating anything or not. But, I think this is a sufficiently high level of interest, that you have senators engaging on it. And so I thought it was important to make the public and sports franchise aware that their workers have rights, just like other American employees have rights."
If a potential EEOC investigation finds that MLB has violated the players' Title VII rights, there would be an immediate case for a lawsuit.
"So first of all, any individual player whose rights were violated, could have a private employment lawsuit," she said. "This Title 7 has a particular statutory scheme that says that you first have to file a claim with a local — that is to say, a state employment agency, and/or the EEOC, and then they do an investigation. They do an investigation, and then they give you a right to sue letter if they're not going to pursue it themselves. If the EEOC is going to pursue it themselves, on behalf of an individual or a group, then they start a negotiation process — a discovery process, negotiation process — with the employer. And then the case either resolves or there's a lawsuit by the EEOC or by the private party. So there are a number of different options."
If the players did decide to file a lawsuit in the state of California, it could be done through a state employment agency in a matter of weeks. Even while the EEOC continues a potential investigation.
"That's the risk for them," she continued. "The penalty for the Major League Baseball employer that is discriminating on the basis of religion against its employees is attorney's fees, back pay if any, and there can be punitive damages under some statutes. So that's what it would be for private party litigation, and in the case of the EEOC, it's typically more of a back pay type of remedy.
"And so at this point, nobody has been fired, nobody has been fined, so that might be premature, and I hope nobody gets fired or fined, because they shouldn't be forced to utter phrases that are at odds with their religious beliefs. And they shouldn't be punished for doing behavior that in a different context, i.e. Black Lives Matter, employees were allowed to put whatever messages they wanted that the leagues preferred and liked. But then they're not allowing them to do so on this message. That means they're enforcing their uniform rules — which is what they're relying on in this case, unevenly, and that is illegal."
ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. TAKE THE DON'T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!
Whether teams are allowed to tell employees to wear a specific symbol that could be viewed as a political statement as part of their uniform, Dhillon said it's a "novel area" under the law. But that the players having a religious objection to making those statements opens the league up to legal consequences.
"This is kind of a novel area because, you know, it is appropriate for an employer in a job where a uniform is required to have certain messaging on the uniform. But forcing them to utter phrases about homosexuality...I think it goes beyond a little bit, and particularly, I don't think employees generally have a free-flowing right to not go along with their employer's preferred messaging unless they have a good reason, like a religious objection. And that is a good reason under the law.
"So I think think that is why you're seeing these players who have these bona fide objections. You know, they're stating very clearly what their objection is by the phraseology that they're, I think, very discreetly applying to their hats. So, my prediction here is that Major League Baseball is going to do nothing to discipline these players, frankly, because they're going to get sued if they do. And that will be very foolish and it will cause a PR backlash, because I think the number of Americans who think it's appropriate to force players to fly political propaganda on their hats is smaller than the number of Christians who watch Major League Baseball."
Between this warning and how the Washington Nationals handled the Trevor Williams case, it seems like the league has created a clear pattern of disparate treatment for people of faith. And Dhillon said this is a growing problem across elite American institutions.
"Oh yeah, I think there's a contempt for people of faith, generally in this country among elites, and, not among most Americans, but among the elites," she said. "And, it is unfortunate, it is foolish, it is un-American. So that's a problem for them, for sure."
This investigation is long overdue, and ideally, would lead to changes in policy for the league and teams like the Giants and Dodgers who've created Pride Night hats. Players should not be a vehicle for organizations to make political statements. And despite the warnings, it wouldn't be surprising if these types of "protests" become more frequent moving forward.