• Phil Griffis

The Intelligent Design Suit-Scopes Monkey Round 2, or Just Another Employment Suit?

Employment lawsuits alleging discrimination are common.   But few have generated the publicity of  David Coppedge’s suit against the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).  The facts of the case are fascinating, and the legal theories set forth in it are rare.  The common misperception is that Coppedge was fired for his beliefs.  Not true!  The case is not alleging wrongful termination, but wrongful demotion.

Mr. Coppedge was the Team Lead System Administrator on JPL’s mind blowing Cassini mission to Saturn.  The suit alleges that JPL is managed, for NASA, by the California Institute of Technology, which is also named as a defendant in the suit.

The suit claims that Coppedge was “charged with violating his employer’s anti-harassment and ethics policies by promoting his religious views while discussing” the theory of Intelligent Design with co-workers.  He was allegedly ordered, under the threat of termination, not to discuss ID, politics or religion.  He claims that he has complied, but has nonetheless been stripped of his team leadership position, constrained in his ability to discuss his views and “kept a prisoner of JPL’s systemic ideological culture”.

A common initial reaction to the scenario is to say, “Wait a minute, he is still working there and has not been fired.  How can he sue?”  The answer lies in the causes of action alleged by his attorneys.  Specifically, they allege:

  1. Religious Discrimination and Retaliation—Coppedge claims that the Defendants violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act by discriminating (by demotion) against him based upon his “religion”.  Certainly a point of argument in the case will be whether Intelligent Design is a “religion” subject to the protections of the Act.

  2. Violation of California’s Constitution–Coppedge claims that the Defendants harassed him by engaging in a scheme to suppress his rights to engage in protected speech.

  3. Wrongful demotion, in violation of California’s Government Code and Constitution.

In the weeks to follow, I will discuss the Defendants’ responses to the claims, and the issues being presented to the court.



Phil Griffis obtained his first jury verdict in 1990, when he convinced a jury that a customer’s fall at his client’s store did not cause the customer’s aspiration pneumonia and stroke. In the years since he has continued to win in courtrooms across the State of Texas.


Recent Posts

See All

Beware of the Reopening

The President has just announced guidelines for "reopening" the country, and it seems certain that Texas state government will fall in line with them.  As your business gears up for "normal" activity,

© 2018 by The Law Office of Phil Griffis.  All Rights Reserved.

  • Black Instagram Icon
  • Black Facebook Icon
  • Black Twitter Icon
  • Black LinkedIn Icon
  • Black YouTube Icon
We are not your attorney. Nothing on this website or blog should be interpreted as legal advice or the creation of an attorney-client relationship. You should not act or rely on the basis of information on this site without seeking the advice of an attorney. 
1322 Space Park Drive, Suite A248 Houston, Texas 77058

(832) 284-4013