Former Consol employee wins nearly $587K in ‘Mark of the Beast’ lawsuit |

Former Consol employee wins nearly $587K in ‘Mark of the Beast’ lawsuit

A former Consol Energy Inc. employee, who believes biometric hand scanning will lead to the “mark of the beast” predicted in the biblical book of Revelation, will receive nearly $587,000 in damages, a federal judge in West Virginia ruled last week.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Consol in 2013, claiming the company failed to accommodate Beverly R. Butcher Jr.’s religious beliefs. According to the lawsuit, he is an evangelical Christian.

Butcher, 58, retired in 2012 when the company installed a hand scanner to log employees in and out of its Robinson Run Mine complex near Shinnston, W.Va. He objected to having either of his hands scanned and being asked to manually log his hours, the lawsuit stated.

A jury in Clarksburg agreed in January that the Cecil-based company failed to accommodate Butcher’s religious belief and awarded him $150,000 in damages. U.S. District Judge Frederick P. Stamp on Aug. 21 added $436,860.74 for back pay and front pay.

“This victory underscores two important American values: religious freedom and inclusiveness,” EEOC general counsel David Lopez said.

Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp., which bought Robinson Run Mine and four other Consol mines in West Virginia in 2013, will appeal the decision, Murray spokesman Gary Broadbent said.

“The record is clear that Mr. Butcher failed to follow the contractually required dispute resolution procedures,” he said. “Further, Consolidation Coal Co. made a reasonable accommodation for his religious beliefs and never discriminated against Mr. Butcher.”

Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.