Born-again Christian awarded €70,000 in discrimination case

homer911

A little surprised there has been no discussion of this story
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/born-again-christian-awarded-70-000-in-discrimination-case-1.1873468

Wasn't it St. Francis of Assisi who is quoted as saying "Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words"?

While I believe that Christians should at all times be prepared to talk about their faith, there is a time and a place..

Manach

Offhand, it has been discussed in at least 3 other forums (AA, AH, and Jobs) so there already is a spirited debate ongoing there.

Nick Park

If his discussion of his faith interfered in any way with his ability to do his job then his employers would be well entitled to tell him to shut up. Otherwise, then it would seem to be treating religion as a special case to allow him to talk about other subjects but not about his faith.

I think people often misunderstand the principle of a secular society as being somehow a mandate to remove any reference to religion altogether. But in reality, in a secular society, religion should be treated in the same way as any other pastime - no special privileges, but no special exclusions either.

If its OK for an engineer to talk about fishing all the time, or to incessantly discuss Manchester United, then it would seem unreasonable to tell someone that they can't talk about their faith.

Saipanne

Example: My religion demands that I treat women like lower beings. So I will do that in work. Which discrimination law applies here? Who is protected?

Sulla Felix

Nick Park wrote: »

If his discussion of his faith interfered in any way with his ability to do his job then his employers would be well entitled to tell him to shut up. Otherwise, then it would seem to be treating religion as a special case to allow him to talk about other subjects but not about his faith.

I think people often misunderstand the principle of a secular society as being somehow a mandate to remove any reference to religion altogether. But in reality, in a secular society, religion should be treated in the same way as any other pastime - no special privileges, but no special exclusions either.

If its OK for an engineer to talk about fishing all the time, or to incessantly discuss Manchester United, then it would seem unreasonable to tell someone that they can't talk about their faith.

I suppose it's a fine line. Without seeing the court documents/testimony, was he repeatedly telling people that fishing is a great hobby if they'd just give it a go, to the point that they were getting annoyed by it?
Certainly I'd treat someone telling me they're Christian and went to mass at the weekend with the same shrug of the shoulders I give to people who tell me they like soccer and watched the Utd game on Sunday. (for the record, atheist and fan of the egg chasing )
They'd both get a swift fo if they kept at me about it though. :pac:

Manach

It seems to be a motivation of secular society to mis-interpret its aims, which is the de-religious society and marginalisation of religion. Court cases brought by the EA have usually been done under the 9 grounds of discrimination, and have been happier cheered on by the progressives in many cases especially involving cases against religious belief. Now when apparently an own goal has been scored against the rapid individuation of society, one is supposed to raise own's arms in faux-horror at this state agency. Thanks but no thanks. The rapid growth of rights and there continuing morphing of whatever the loudest lobbying groups what them to be make it even more fraught and hazardous to employ people.

Sulla Felix

Manach wrote: »

It seems to be a motivation of secular society to mis-interpret its aims, which is the de-religious society and marginalisation of religion. Court cases brought by the EA have usually been done under the 9 grounds of discrimination, and have been happier cheered on by the progressives in many cases especially involving cases against religious belief. Now when apparently an own goal has been scored against the rapid individuation of society, one is supposed to raise own's arms in faux-horror at this state agency. Thanks but no thanks. The rapid growth of rights and there continuing morphing of whatever the loudest lobbying groups what them to be make it even more fraught and hazardous to employ people.

That's a good point. There's 101 subtle ways a HR interviewer can determine if a candidate is going to be "trouble" down the road, be it a woman who plans to have children in the short- to medium-term, membership of various groups etc. This kind of profiling does happen, they're just not stupid enough to tell the failing candidate that that's why they're not getting the job.
I can imagine the gears turning when this chap brings it up in his next interview unfortunately.

Manach

Sulla Felix wrote: »

This kind of profiling does happen, they're just not stupid enough to tell the failing candidate that that's why they're not getting the job.

From what I remember from reading academic texts on this, the employee can be still brought up on indirect discrimination. In that statistical modelling of say male/female applications and job holders is allowed to be used and any deviation from a standard deviation can be grounds for investigation and the burden of proof then shifting to the employer to show that there was no discrimination involved. Offhand this was done in a recentish HSE case involving health care staff.

Sulla Felix

Manach wrote: »

From what I remember from reading academic texts on this, the employee can be still brought up on indirect discrimination. In that statistical modelling of say male/female applications and job holders is allowed to be used and any deviation from a standard deviation can be grounds for investigation and the burden of proof then shifting to the employer to show that there was no discrimination involved. Offhand this was done in a recentish HSE case involving health care staff.

Huh, interesting. I'm surprised to find them being so progressive in using that kind of tool to investigate. Presumably the onus is still on the applicant to wave a flag though. I know HR people who seem pretty confident in never giving any indication they're going to give the thumbs down for an actionable reason. I'd imagine there's plenty of people who don't get the job, but aren't left feeling it was on discriminatory grounds.

Benny_Cake

It seems like this might have been something of an extreme case - as a public sector worker I know that dismissal is always the last resort (although it does happen more than people might think!). That said...

In June 2009, Mr McAteer was suspended without pay for two months and was ordered to see a professional to help him with his compulsive behaviour after he was spotted talking to a man outside a coffee shop about religion.

This does seem somewhat questionable if he was outside the office on his own time.

I think Nick has a point in that some people do seem to think that they should be protected from any mention of the subject of religion or faith. A person boring their colleagues constantly about religion is no different than someone who always goes on about politics, their favourite team, or Garth Brooks. No doubt that it can be annoying though!

Immanuel

It's hard to know with any press reports these days what the real facts in this case might be.
Regardless what religion he is, or if he was an atheist, or whatever the subject might be, he should not be persistently pestering people at work, but people should be permitted to express their opinions at work, and at lunch time, if it's in a civil manner. Though I have come across cases of incompetent Irish management who believe only their own opinions should ever be expressed, so perhaps its something to do with that. The strange thing about this case, is I've seen better connected public sector workers and managers get away with far worse things at work, and face no disciplinary action whatsoever from their management, never mind dismissal, so something about this case does not add up. Perhaps he was also highlighting such acts, and they tried to silence him.

MrPudding

Nick Park wrote: »

If his discussion of his faith interfered in any way with his ability to do his job then his employers would be well entitled to tell him to shut up. Otherwise, then it would seem to be treating religion as a special case to allow him to talk about other subjects but not about his faith.

I think people often misunderstand the principle of a secular society as being somehow a mandate to remove any reference to religion altogether. But in reality, in a secular society, religion should be treated in the same way as any other pastime - no special privileges, but no special exclusions either.

If its OK for an engineer to talk about fishing all the time, or to incessantly discuss Manchester United, then it would seem unreasonable to tell someone that they can't talk about their faith.

I think you might be misunderstanding this case, and therefore be coming to some quite wrong conclusions. As a member of the EU states have certain responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is that the judiciary, of which EU case law has decided employment tribunals are part of, are required to take EU law and rules into account, and this includes the EU Convention on Human Rights.

This convention provides citizens with a suite of rights. One of those rights is not, however, a right to not have to listen to people talk about stuff you don't like. As a result, someone talking about fishing or football, however annoying you may find that, is not likely to engage any convention rights. Of course, it is possible that something could become a problem that is actionable for reasons other than a convention right, and were someone constantly hounding you about his favourite football team to the point that it interfered with your work, then you might have some cause of action under harassment rules.

Now, whilst you say you think that religion should have no special privilege, the fact of the matter is, it does. Article 9 of the convention relates to religion:

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 9 wrote:

[...] This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"

And this is likely where the case in question was being fought. This particular article gives you the right to hold you belief and it gives you a right to manifest that belief. But there are two things to note, first, it also give others a right to have no belief and for this to be respected. Secondly, it is a qualified right.

Whilst I have not had a chance to find and read the case, I would hazard that Freedom of (and from) religion will have played a large part from both sides. This is where it gets a little tricky, a person has a right not be to preached to against his or her will. This right comes from the same article. What case law has generally said in the past is you have the right to hold a belief, you have the right to manifest that belief, and here is where the qualification comes in, you right to manifest that belief stops at the point where you begin to infringe on someone else's convention right, be that article 9 or any other.

I will try to get a hold of the transcript, but this really does seem like a bad judgement, not just because I don't like the result (which I don't) but because it seems to ignore previous jurisprudence on this type of case.

Saipanne wrote: »

Example: My religion demands that I treat women like lower beings. So I will do that in work. Which discrimination law applies here? Who is protected?

As I said above, normally one's rights apply until they interfere with someone else's. This was reasonably clear up to now...

Manach wrote: »

It seems to be a motivation of secular society to mis-interpret its aims, which is the de-religious society and marginalisation of religion. Court cases brought by the EA have usually been done under the 9 grounds of discrimination, and have been happier cheered on by the progressives in many cases especially involving cases against religious belief. Now when apparently an own goal has been scored against the rapid individuation of society, one is supposed to raise own's arms in faux-horror at this state agency. Thanks but no thanks. The rapid growth of rights and there continuing morphing of whatever the loudest lobbying groups what them to be make it even more fraught and hazardous to employ people.

There is no faux-horror here... I love law, I am, therefore, genuinely horrified at the way it has been tortured and, IMHO, misinterpreted in this case. There is no own goal, I hate football, but to continue your analogy, would you consider it an own goal if the referee lifted the ball, set it in your goal and then awarded the goal to your opponents? Cos that is pretty much what has happened here.

MrP

MrPudding

So here is the case:

http://www.labourcourt.ie/en/Cases/2014/June/DEC-E2014-045.html

I don't think this is a good judgement. Hopefully it will be appealed.

MrP

Manach

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't think this is a good judgement. Hopefully it will be appealed.

MrP

I don't love the law, I merely know it. It has been increasingly used as a means of activism and this is the logical outcome. Employment law has some of the most out-of-field pronounciations in the subtopics of the area, and this judgement is merely the natural outgrowth of the logically lacuna at the heart of human rights conceptualisations. The faux-outrage seems not that the law was applied, but that the outcome did was in some way benefits to religious believers. For a more main stream approach to how such is regarded, may I suggest this month's edition of the Law Gazette with Lady Hale's take on the subject in general?

Immanuel

I don't think it was a good decision either, and Local Authorities money would be better spent weeding out and dismissing their far worse employees and management. Look on the bright side Mr P, in the meantime, militant atheists can now evangelize their atheist opinions to their hearts content at work. I still think the equality office is on a twist to create outcry in order to have the law changed.

MrPudding

Immanuel wrote: »

I don't think it was a good decision either, and Local Authorities money would be better spent weeding out and dismissing their far worse employees and management. Look on the bright side Mr P, in the meantime, militant atheists can now evangelize their atheist opinions to their hearts content at work. I still think the equality office is on a twist to create outcry in order to have the law changed.

What, exactly, makes a militant athiest? Would the person in this case be a militant christian?

MrP

Immanuel

MrPudding wrote: »

Would the person in this case be a militant christian?

MrP

If the press reports are correct, and who knows these days, in my opinion, yes.

MrPudding

Manach wrote: »

I don't love the law, I merely know it. It has been increasingly used as a means of activism and this is the logical outcome.

Of course it is being used as a means of activism, that is what it is for.

Manach wrote: »

Employment law has some of the most out-of-field pronounciations in the subtopics of the area, and this judgement is merely the natural outgrowth of the logically lacuna at the heart of human rights conceptualisations.

What logic do you think is missing from human rights conceptualisations?

Manach wrote: »

The faux-outrage seems not that the law was applied, but that the outcome did was in some way benefits to religious believers.

No, it is simply a bad judgement. As much as I dislike religion, I like law enough to be reasonably subjective when it comes to looking at a particular judgement. That the beneficiary was religious is neither here nor there, as far as I am concerned. This is a bad judgement, IMO, that seems only to consider the rights of the person who was dismissed, not those that had to put up with him. Further, the comparator used to decide if there had been discrimination does not seem adequate. His treatment was compared to people of other religions. Personally, I feel his treatment should have been compared to people of other religions that behaved in a similar manner to him. I suspect if a muslim or a scientologist, or indeed, an atheist behaved in the same way they would suffer, quite rightly, a similar fate.

I don't accept the principle that he must constantly speak of his faith and share it. Others seem to get by just fine.

Manach wrote: »

For a more main stream approach to how such is regarded, may I suggest this month's edition of the Law Gazette with Lady Hale's take on the subject in general?

Hmmm, I have an enormous amount of respect for Lady Hale, but i have to disagree with a lot of what she said in it. She seems to have fallen foul of the untruth that the religious are being persecuted, when in fact they are merely been treated like everyone else. I appreciate that losing one's place of privilege may be difficult, but arguing that having one's right to discriminate against others, or be able to behave in a way that upsets and possibly infringes on other peoples rights, is persecution is a little bit wrong.

This idea of persecution is one support my certain media outlets in the UK and it stinks. Many of our right are, quite rightly, qualified. As much as I respect Lady Hale, I am disappointed that she has fallen for the propaganda.

MrP

MrPudding

Immanuel wrote: »

If the press reports are correct, and who knows these days, in my opinion, yes.

Forget the press reports. Read the case, I provided a link.

MrP

Immanuel

MrPudding wrote: »

Forget the press reports. Read the case, I provided a link.

MrP

Well that sheds a new light on it. Reading between the lines, he was shafted, particularly by Mr B who seemed to have a particular grudge at being seen at the bicycle race during working hours. So the monitoring and entrapment was set up. The vast majority of his opinions occurred during breaks. "He usually shares faith with people in a social setting. He said that sometimes when he is sharing his faith with people he can read that they are not interested without them verbalising it and when he sees these signs he stops". Sounds like anyone talking about a football team or such like to me. If it had been a football team he casually talked to people about, I doubt he would never have faced the chop. It would fit the public service better to start closely monitoring of the incompetent and bullying, but well connected, employees and management among their ranks.

Manach

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course it is being used as a means of activism, that is what it is for.

To actually provide a means to settle disputes and not act as drivers of social change depending on the concept of living document (ie whatever the judge thinks ought to be law instead of what actually is the law).

MrPudding wrote: »

What logic do you think is missing from human rights conceptualisations?

Echoing books on the subject by Clatham and others, that HR has no fixed demarkation: it can mean whatever it they mean it to be to act as a trump card to win legal battles.

MrPudding wrote: »

As much as I dislike religion, I like law enough to be reasonably subjective when it comes to looking at a particular judgement

When you say subjective, unsure what you mean. If this was a factual scenario of an LGBT then I'd reckon quite a number of those having issues with this judgement would be noticeable by their silence.

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm, I have an enormous amount of respect for Lady Hale, but i have to disagree with a lot of what she said in it. She seems to have fallen foul of the untruth that the religious are being persecuted, when in fact they are merely been treated like everyone else.

This opinion does seem to run counter to the both the activities of the EA here and elsewhere within the EU that acts as means (or activism if you perferred) to remove aspects of religion from the public square. To harken back to the debate on the proper use of law, a main proponent of black letter stated that while morality has no place in law, morality can exist without law and outside the state as an arbiter of right/wrong.
Your use of discrimination is one of the totematic words that law-activism is supposed to be primed to fire-up against. However this a false flag, what it will eventually lead to is an extreme form of individualisation where any form of control on behaviour will lead to be labelled "discrimination". Thus the core concept of your understanding of law is incorrect as this case is just the logical outgrowth of the the growth of the rights industry - the moral outrage is just that was of benefit for once of a religious believer.