An administrative Social Security judge who hears disability cases in Houston says the federal government violated his civil rights when it required him to view a training video about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender awareness and inclusion in the workplace.

Now he is suing the government in federal court on allegations that the mandatory video created a "religiously hostile work environment" bolstered by the threat of sanctions if he failed to watch the 17-minute video on demand.

He is asking that the requirement be lifted as a "religious accommodation" and his personnel status reflect that he has not violated this job requirement.

Gary Suttles, of Missouri City, has served as an administrative law judge in Houston for nearly 12 years at federal offices on Bissonett near the Sam Houston Tollway. He contends that the acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration through her agents violated his freedom of religion when they made the video a mandatory job requirement.

The Social Security Administration declined to comment on pending litigation or personnel matters, said Sarah Schultz-Lackey, a spokesperson in the agency's Dallas public affairs office.

He is at least the second federal employee to protest viewing the video. An employee with the Social Security Administration in Illinois also refused to watch the video, saying it violated his religious freedom, according to the News-Gazette in Champaign.

Suttles' lawsuit states that the training video was introduced in accordance with a 2011 executive order by then-President Barack Obama that established "a coordinated government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce."

Suttles received a group email May 17, 2016, explaining he and others included in the workgroup needed to watch the video, which was titled "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community" and had an introduction by the acting commissioner and "a brief session on tips for increasing cultural awareness," by June 6

Suttles responded via email, explaining he would not be participating in the training, according to court documents.

"I am already fully aware to treat all persons with respect and dignity and have done so my entire life," he wrote. "Furthermore, this type of government indoctrination training does not comport with my religious views and I object on that basis as well."

The chief administration judge issued multiple requests for him to comply by either viewing the video or reading a transcript of it. She explained that failure to do so might result in disciplinary action.

Suttles asked for an accommodation based on his religion, suggesting a more broad-ranging cultural training that he would pay for with his own money. Various officials at the agency declined, according to the lawsuit, and said his personnel file would reflect his refusal to comply with the training.

He is asking for a jury to determine whether the government should exempt him from this requirement and cease retaliation for his religious beliefs.

David T. Lopez, a Houston lawyer who has represented hundreds of federal workers in employment cases, was not familiar with this particular case. But he said he thought the federal agency was on solid ground.

"If it's a requirement in the job in terms of training, you ought to take it," he said, "and if you really feel that strongly about it you can say, 'I won't take it, but I will recuse myself if the people in court fall into this protected group.'"