Climate change belief given same legal status as religion

Dades

Not exactly A&A related but an interesting one this.

An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs

Article here.

Turtwig

Not good.:mad:

Edit : Should have read more of the article first.

Not that bad actually.
Worry is though that the anti global warming camp will now use it as an excuse to say the theory is simply religion.

Sam Vimes

"His lawyer Shah Qureshi, head of employment law at Bindmans LLP, argued that if the ruling had gone against them, "the end result would be that the more evidence there is to support your views, the less likely it would be for you to enjoy protection against discrimination". "

That makes sense I suppose but the guy refused to travel by air in a job that required it. I'm all for equality but I don't think companies should be forced to hire people who can't do the job properly. In the same way discrimination based on disability is illegal and if a person in a wheelchair applies for an office job they have a case if their disability is a factor in not taking them on........but not if they apply to be a fireman.

Goduznt Xzst

Good luck to Mr. Nicholson in finding another job in the same field.

Also, re Vimes point, he hasn't actually successfully sued his employer yet, he's just won the right to sue him.

I'd fully expect the Tribunal to take Nicholson to town and award him the princely sum of nothing, to go along with that overtly smug face of his (seriously did he practice that in the mirror or something?)

doctoremma

Dades wrote: »

Not exactly A&A related but an interesting one this.



Article here.

I don't really get this. Is the company saying that it can't be considered a philosophical belief because there is scientific evidence to support it? Which sounds fair enough, surely? So did the guy resign in protest at his company's disregard for environmentalism? Isn't that simply his prerogative? There are lots of companies I wouldn't choose to work for becasue I have objections to their business - surely I can't expect to sue each of them?

NothingMan

What I get out of this is Yes you can sue your company if they unfairly dismiss you because of your environmental stance.

However when they go to court I would assume he would lose because he was not fired because of his beliefs but because he refused to do something that was a fundemental part of his job description. ie, flying.

The guy looks like a tit and on that basis alone he should get nothing!

MrPudding

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also, re Vimes point, he hasn't actually successfully sued his employer yet, he's just won the right to sue him.

I'd fully expect the Tribunal to take Nicholson to town and award him the princely sum of nothing, to go along with that overtly smug face of his (seriously did he practice that in the mirror or something?)

You would love to smack that snug look off him…

Indeed he has just won the right to sue his employer. I don’t think this implies any validity, as such to his belief. It is merely saying that, for the purposes of the 2003 Regulations his asserted belief is capable of being a belief that can be discriminated against.

In fact, he specifically says that the tribunal could not have questioned the validly of the beliefs.

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON wrote:

The Claimant has not been cross-examined on that evidence, but it is doubtful whether such cross-examination would be permitted, since it is not the function of the Tribunal to examine the beliefs of Claimants appearing before it. Instead it is the function of the Tribunal to analyse those beliefs to see whether they engage relevant legislation."

And he finishes with:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON wrote:

For these reasons I dismiss Mr Bowers' appeal, and uphold the decision of the Employment Tribunal, provided that it is, and is only, in the terms of paragraph 1(a) of the Judge's judgment as amended by me in paragraph 7 above. Further I make clear that, at any full hearing, there will indeed need to be evidence and cross-examination relating to the matters set out in paragraph 11 of the Tribunal judgment (in that he has to "adduce evidence from which the Tribunal could conclude that what was done was done on the grounds of his belief"). But particularly, and logically anterior, there will, in the light of the unusual nature of the asserted belief and of its alleged manifestation, need to be evidence and cross-examination directed to the genuineness of the belief (Lord Nicholls in paragraph 23 of Williamson) and also, insofar as relevant, by reference to the limitations and criteria set out in paragraph 24 above.

In paragraph 7, quoted below, there is a bit of a slap for the tribunal judge, who he believes went too far in his judgement.

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON wrote:

In those circumstances, it is agreed between the parties that, insofar as the Employment Judge may have purported to hold, as he seems to do in the last sentence of paragraph 10 of his judgment, that "the Claimant's beliefs are or amount to a philosophical belief within the 2003 Regulations", he was not entitled to go that far and that the limit of his decision, and of mine if I uphold it, is that (almost as set out in paragraph 1(a) of the judgment) "the asserted belief held by the Claimant upon which he bases his claim of discrimination is capable of being a belief for the purposes of" the 2003 Regulations.

In short, all they are saying is that this type of belief might be protected, but it will have to be proven that it is worthy of protection.

It will be interesting to see how it goes.

From the same case, and judge, a sense of how the case against Tecso by the Jedi asked to remove his hood might go, should he choose to pursue it…

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON wrote:

Given that context, philosophical beliefs must therefore always be of a similar nature to religious beliefs. It will be for the courts to decide what constitutes a belief for the purposes of [the Regulations] but case law suggests that any philosophical belief must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and must not be incompatible with human dignity. Therefore an example of a belief that might meet this description is humanism, and examples of something that might not ? would be support of a political party or a belief in the supreme nature of the Jedi Knights [a reference to a Camelot-style Order in the cult film Star Wars].

MrP

NothingMan

NothingMan wrote: »

However when they go to court I would assume he would lose because he was not fired because of his beliefs but because he refused to do something that was a fundemental part of his job description. ie, flying.

It doesn't say flying was a fundamental part of his job - maybe he feels the employer didn't fully explore the possibility of web conferencing, trains, not travelling at all etc.

20goto10

Is Gaia not a philosophy?