Quote
Judge rules activist's beliefs on climate change akin to religion
Tim Nicholson entitled to protection for his beliefs, and his claim over dismissal will now be heard by a tribunal
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FAdmin%2FBkFill%2FDefault_image_group%2F2009%2F11%2F3%2F1257280889175%2FTim-Nicholson-001.jpg&hash=f77b04a3f52565a63bab962bf61e9358d19f99f5)
Tim Nicholson leaves an employment tribunal at Audit House, London. Photograph: Anthony Devlin/PA
When Rupert Dickinson, the chief executive of one of Britain's biggest property firms, left his BlackBerry behind in London while on a business trip to Ireland, he simply ordered one of his staff to get on a plane and deliver the device to him.
For Dickinson's then head of sustainability, Tim Nicholson, the errand was much more than an executive indulgence: it embodied the contempt with which his boss treated his deep philosophical beliefs about climate change.
In a significant decision today , a judge found Nicholson's views on the environment were so deeply held that they were entitled to the same protection as religious convictions, and ruled that an employment tribunal should hear his claim that he was sacked because of his beliefs.
The judgment could open the door for people to take their employers to tribunals over their stance on a range of issues, from animal rights to feminism.
Earlier this year, Nicholson, 42, claimed that his beliefs had put him at odds with senior executives at his former employer Grainger, the UK's largest listed residential property company. When he was made redundant in July last year, he launched his legal action.
He alleged that while the firm had good written policies on the environment it had refused to abide by them, and claimed that when he tried to encourage the company to become more responsible, he was obstructed by his bosses. Dickinson, in particular, had shown "contempt" for his beliefs, Nicholson told the employment appeal tribunal, citing the BlackBerry incident as evidence.
In today's ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton decided that: "A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations." Under those regulations it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs.
The written ruling, which looked at whether philosophy could be underpinned by a scientific belief, quoted from Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy and ultimately concluded that a belief in climate change, while a political view about science, can also be a philosophical one. The same judge ruled last year that Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth was political and partisan as he assessed whether it should be shown to schools.
Nicholson's solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "This case confirms, for the ever increasing number of people who take a philosophical stance on the environment and climate change, and who lead their lives according to those principles, that they are protected from discrimination."
In March, employment judge David Neath gave Nicholson permission to take the firm to tribunal over his treatment, but the ruling was challenged by Grainger on the grounds that green views are not the same as religious or philosophical beliefs. The firm maintained that environmental views are political and a "lifestyle choice" which cannot be compared to religion or philosophy.
Legal experts said tonight the ruling could usher in future damages claims over the way firms handle environmental concerns. Peter Mooney, head of the Employment Law Advisory Service, said: "This would open the floodgates for others who believe their employers have victimised them simply because of their views on the environment."
Camilla Palmer, of Leigh Day and Co, said it opened doors for an even wider category of deeply held beliefs, such as feminism, vegetarianism or humanism. "It's a great decision. Why should it only be religions which are protected?"
At the Employment Appeal Tribunal last month, Dinah Rose QC, for Nicholson, said: "The philosophical belief in this case is that mankind is headed towards catastrophic climate change and that, as a result, we are under a duty to do all that we can to live our lives so as to mitigate or avoid that catastrophe for future generations. It addresses the question, what are the duties that we own to the environment and why?"
Nicholson, who now works for the 10:10 climate change campaign running its health care strand, said he was delighted by the ruling. He said: "It is the moral and ethical values that I hold that have motivated me to action on climate change and these moral and ethical values are similar to those promoted by the world's major religions."
However, he did not believe that climate change was the new religion, because "it is based on scientific evidence, not faith or spirituality".
Grainger's corporate affairs director, Dave Butler, said: "This decision merely confirms that views on the importance of environmental protection are capable of amounting to a philosophical belief.
"Grainger absolutely maintains, as it has done from the very outset of these proceedings, that Mr Nicholson's redundancy was driven solely by the operational needs of the company."
Five tests
In his written judgment, Mr Justice Burton outlined five tests to determine whether a philosophical belief could come under employment regulations on religious discrimination
• The belief must be genuinely held.
• It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available.
• It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life.
• It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
• It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
Humanism was given as an example meeting the criteria, while belief in a political party or the supreme nature of Jedi knights, from the Star Wars movies, were offered as ones that do not.
• This article was amended on Wednesday 4 November 2009 to make clear Tim Nicholson's current role.
It's all rather interesting. By the sounds of it I think the Judge was right. Though I do wonder where it leads. You could presumably fire someone for being a Lib Dem, but you couldn't fire them for believing in a liberal philosophical framework :huh:
Nice, the Great Parent sticking its nose into even more stuff. WTF
What a douche.
Wow. Talk about making yourself unemployable.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 28, 2009, 06:15:56 AM
It's all rather interesting. By the sounds of it I think the Judge was right. Though I do wonder where it leads. You could presumably fire someone for being a Lib Dem, but you couldn't fire them for believing in a liberal philosophical framework :huh:
Is the EU directive on non-discrimination in work place not in force in the UK? It prohibits firing people for, among other, their political beliefs or political organization membership (excepting illegal organizations, of course). So unless Lib Dems were delegalized, I don't think you could fire someone for being a Lib Dem.
Anyway, the ruling goes in the right direction, even though it showcases why the "protected class" approach to non-discrimination is a bad idea.
There is no reason why someone's religion should be protected, but their political or philosophical views shouldn't - we don't choose our views any more than we choose our religion, and personal integrity (including being true to our own beliefs) is not less important than being true to one's religious rules.
But then again, laws should prohibit discrimination based on any personal trait, unless such trait is in a direct and irreconcilable conflict with the nature of one's work duties (e.g. a pacifist joining the military; an atheist wanting to become a priest etc.)
Also, I think that in this case the fact that the firm had a "green" policy but didn't follow it is relevant to the ruling, since this does an element of a fair and reasonable expectation on behalf of the employee that the firm will be green-friendly, which was obviously relevant for him.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 06:22:31 AM
Also, I think that in this case the fact that the firm had a "green" policy but didn't follow it is relevant to the ruling, since this does an element of a fair and reasonable expectation on behalf of the employee that the firm will be green-friendly, which was obviously relevant for him.
The plaintiff *alleged* they didn't follow their own policy. I don't know how they're written in the UK, but in the US they say things like "we will work to protect the environment," as opposed to "no employee shall travel by plane for the purpose of retrieving misplaced Blackberrys."
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 06:11:33 AM
Is the EU directive on non-discrimination in work place not in force in the UK?
No, we've got an opt-out on labour laws and the social chapter and stuff like that.
QuoteThe plaintiff *alleged* they didn't follow their own policy. I don't know how they're written in the UK, but in the US they say things like "we will work to protect the environment," as opposed to "no employee shall travel by plane for the purpose of retrieving misplaced Blackberrys."
That's for the employment tribunal to decide. I think the judge has just decided that he can go to a tribunal on these grounds.
Quote from: Neil on November 28, 2009, 07:25:13 AM
Wow. Talk about making yourself unemployable.
Nonsense. I'm sure he will find a place in some grant-funded activist organization precisely because of this notoriety.
How in the world is one to differentiate between "... a belief" and "... an opinion or view based on the present state of information available"?
Also, seems pretty clear from the story that the fellow was sacked because he did not hide his contempt for his employers, not for merely holding his "beliefs". I cannot imagine that holding "beliefs", religious or otherwise, entitles one to impose them on others in the workplace, such as one's boss. If I'm an orthodox Jew and my non-Jewish boss chooses to eat a ham sandwich, am I entitled to some sort of remedy if I pester my boss not to eat ham and he shows "contempt" for my views by continuing to eat it anyway - then fires me for being an ass about it?
If that's the case, this "victory" may be a pretty meaningless one on the substance of the tribunal (though some administrative tribunals are pretty nuts, so who knows).
Well it was his job to be a bother, Malthus. :D
The nice thing is to see how thoroughly kronn managed to not understand the relevance of the ruling.
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 04:15:21 PM
How in the world is one to differentiate between "... a belief" and "... an opinion or view based on the present state of information available"?
Sounds like a "belief" is a position you hold without evidence (like "God doesn't want me to eat oysters, so I'll take a pass on them") rather than an opinion based on information ("three people have gotten sick eating oysters this week; I think I'll take a pass on them"). Apparently, uninformed beliefs are protected but informed opinions are not! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2009, 07:00:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 04:15:21 PM
How in the world is one to differentiate between "... a belief" and "... an opinion or view based on the present state of information available"?
Sounds like a "belief" is a position you hold without evidence (like "God doesn't want me to eat oysters, so I'll take a pass on them") rather than an opinion based on information ("three people have gotten sick eating oysters this week; I think I'll take a pass on them"). Apparently, uninformed beliefs are protected but informed opinions are not! :lol:
Being a cunt isn't protected.
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2009, 04:31:26 PM
Well it was his job to be a bother, Malthus. :D
Apparently no one told him he could stop now that he has been fired.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2009, 09:44:04 AM
That's for the employment tribunal to decide. I think the judge has just decided that he can go to a tribunal on these grounds.
Why would it be for the employment tribunal to decide if they followed their own environment policy or not?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2009, 07:11:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2009, 09:44:04 AM
That's for the employment tribunal to decide. I think the judge has just decided that he can go to a tribunal on these grounds.
Why would it be for the employment tribunal to decide if they followed their own environment policy or not?
Why would it matter whether the company followed their own environmental policy? I don't see what that has to do with the reason this guy got the sack.
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2009, 06:49:41 PM
The nice thing is to see how thoroughly kronn managed to not understand the relevance of the ruling.
" In a significant decision today , a judge found Nicholson's views on the environment were so deeply held that they were entitled to the same protection as religious convictions, and ruled that an employment tribunal should hear his claim that he was sacked because of his beliefs.
The judgment could open the door for people to take their employers to tribunals over their stance on a range of issues, from animal rights to feminism. "
Hmm, this actually speaks to my point about the stridency that some people have over enviro issues.
But it doesn't speak to your point that somehow because a judge said people deeply held beliefs (ANY deeply held beliefs), therefore it is reasonable to dismiss concerns about GW in general.
The judges ruling means nothing in relation to the discussion at hand - he could have made the same ruling about literally anything.
Unless, of course, your point itself is redundant and meaningless, and amount to nothing more than "Gosh, some people sure do care a lot about the environment!".
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2009, 11:15:21 PM
Unless, of course, your point itself is redundant and meaningless, and amount to nothing more than "Gosh, some people sure do care a lot about the environment!".
:lol: In other words, even if I've been beating you up over a bullshit strawman this entire time you're still wrong.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2009, 12:08:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2009, 11:15:21 PM
Unless, of course, your point itself is redundant and meaningless, and amount to nothing more than "Gosh, some people sure do care a lot about the environment!".
:lol: In other words, even if I've been beating you up over a bullshit strawman this entire time you're still wrong.
Not a strawman in the least - do you want to show us how this ruling applies to the discussion about global warming? Kronn certainly has failed to do so.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 12:20:23 AM
Not a strawman in the least - do you want to show us how this ruling applies to the discussion about global warming? Kronn certainly has failed to do so.
Do you want to show us where KRonn said this?
But it doesn't speak to your point that somehow because a judge said people deeply held beliefs (ANY deeply held beliefs), therefore it is reasonable to dismiss concerns about GW in general.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2009, 01:02:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 12:20:23 AM
Not a strawman in the least - do you want to show us how this ruling applies to the discussion about global warming? Kronn certainly has failed to do so.
Do you want to show us where KRonn said this?
But it doesn't speak to your point that somehow because a judge said people deeply held beliefs (ANY deeply held beliefs), therefore it is reasonable to dismiss concerns about GW in general.
Quote from: Kronn
The UK courts have allowed climate change to be classified a religion, as I said before. That's a bit concerning to me.
How is it concerning, since the ruling does not especially apply to "climate change" nor has the court said that "climate change" is a religion anyway.
QuoteI honestly feel that we've been pushing the whole debate of how we're destroying the planet too far, and pursuing policies based on that too far.
This in response to questioning the entire line of claiming that global warming is a religion put forth by spicey and kronn.
QuoteDidn't we just have a thread about the UK courts determining that climate change proponents or groups, could be classified as a religion? :huh:
In response to me suggesting that we should not really concern ourselves with individual nutjobs on either side of the debate - he responds by clearly claiming that "groups" could be classified as religions by the UK courts. This is both untrue, and irrelevant to the extent that what the court said was that particular people could have beliefs that are held strongly enough to entitle them to protection as if those beliefs were religious. Court said zilch about defining proponents or groups that have something to do with global warming as religions.
Case closed.
Quote from: KRonn on November 29, 2009, 10:50:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2009, 06:49:41 PM
The nice thing is to see how thoroughly kronn managed to not understand the relevance of the ruling.
" In a significant decision today , a judge found Nicholson's views on the environment were so deeply held that they were entitled to the same protection as religious convictions, and ruled that an employment tribunal should hear his claim that he was sacked because of his beliefs.
The judgment could open the door for people to take their employers to tribunals over their stance on a range of issues, from animal rights to feminism. "
Hmm, this actually speaks to my point about the stridency that some people have over enviro issues.
But your point was not that "some people" are strident about enviro issues - it was that supposedly the UK courts had "determined that climage change proponents or groups could be classified as a religion".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2009, 07:11:02 PM
Why would it be for the employment tribunal to decide if they followed their own environment policy or not?
I imagine that'll be part of his case. The employment tribunal will be to decide whether he was fired because of his green view or not, the court case was to decide whether or not he could go to an employment tribunal on the basis of his green views - do they form a philosophical 'belief' or not.
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 04:15:21 PM
How in the world is one to differentiate between "... a belief" and "... an opinion or view based on the present state of information available"?
Also, seems pretty clear from the story that the fellow was sacked because he did not hide his contempt for his employers, not for merely holding his "beliefs". I cannot imagine that holding "beliefs", religious or otherwise, entitles one to impose them on others in the workplace, such as one's boss. If I'm an orthodox Jew and my non-Jewish boss chooses to eat a ham sandwich, am I entitled to some sort of remedy if I pester my boss not to eat ham and he shows "contempt" for my views by continuing to eat it anyway - then fires me for being an ass about it?
If that's the case, this "victory" may be a pretty meaningless one on the substance of the tribunal (though some administrative tribunals are pretty nuts, so who knows).
I don't think this is a good analogy. I understand the guy was fired for refusing to take a plane and bring the Blackberry to his boss. In your analogy it would be a guy asking his Jewish assistant to prepare a ham sandwich for him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2009, 07:11:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2009, 09:44:04 AM
That's for the employment tribunal to decide. I think the judge has just decided that he can go to a tribunal on these grounds.
Why would it be for the employment tribunal to decide if they followed their own environment policy or not?
Because firing someone for refusing to break the company's own policy is easier to challenge than firing someone for following their beliefs, I imagine.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 02:26:13 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2009, 07:11:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2009, 09:44:04 AM
That's for the employment tribunal to decide. I think the judge has just decided that he can go to a tribunal on these grounds.
Why would it be for the employment tribunal to decide if they followed their own environment policy or not?
Because firing someone for refusing to break the company's own policy is easier to challenge than firing someone for following their beliefs, I imagine.
Except this guy didn't refuse to follow anything.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 02:19:09 AM
I understand the guy was fired for refusing to take a plane and bring the Blackberry to his boss.
Can you cite me the source which says (or even implies) that Nicholson was the one sent for the Blackberry? I see no such evidence. Nicholson doesn't claim this in the OP article.
QuoteFor Dickinson's then head of sustainability, Tim Nicholson, the errand was much more than an executive indulgence: it embodied the contempt with which his boss treated his deep philosophical beliefs about climate change.
(snip)
Earlier this year, Nicholson, 42, claimed that his beliefs had put him at odds with senior executives at his former employer Grainger, the UK's largest listed residential property company. When he was made redundant in July last year, he launched his legal action.
He alleged that while the firm had good written policies on the environment it had refused to abide by them, and claimed that when he tried to encourage the company to become more responsible, he was obstructed by his bosses. Dickinson, in particular, had shown "contempt" for his beliefs, Nicholson told the employment appeal tribunal, citing the BlackBerry incident as evidence.
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2009, 07:00:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 04:15:21 PM
How in the world is one to differentiate between "... a belief" and "... an opinion or view based on the present state of information available"?
Sounds like a "belief" is a position you hold without evidence (like "God doesn't want me to eat oysters, so I'll take a pass on them") rather than an opinion based on information ("three people have gotten sick eating oysters this week; I think I'll take a pass on them"). Apparently, uninformed beliefs are protected but informed opinions are not! :lol:
:lol:
So for this guy, his "environmentalism" is some sort of uninformed knee-jerk reaction ... but if he'd carefully studied the issues and came to the rational, reasoned conclusion that the environment ought to be protected, he'd be shit out of luck?
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2009, 07:00:42 PM
Sounds like a "belief" is a position you hold without evidence (like "God doesn't want me to eat oysters, so I'll take a pass on them") rather than an opinion based on information ("three people have gotten sick eating oysters this week; I think I'll take a pass on them"). Apparently, uninformed beliefs are protected but informed opinions are not! :lol:
Here's the judge's list of what constitutes a religion or philosophical belief:
QuoteIn his written judgment, Mr Justice Burton outlined five tests to determine whether a philosophical belief could come under employment regulations on religious discrimination
• The belief must be genuinely held.
• It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available.
• It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life.
• It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
• It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
Humanism was given as an example meeting the criteria, while belief in a political party or the supreme nature of Jedi knights, from the Star Wars movies, were offered as ones that do not.
So, by point two I think you're right :P
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 02:19:09 AM
I don't think this is a good analogy. I understand the guy was fired for refusing to take a plane and bring the Blackberry to his boss. In your analogy it would be a guy asking his Jewish assistant to prepare a ham sandwich for him.
The story doesn't tell us what the guy who was fired was asked to do. All we know is that he reacted to his boss's "contempt" in having a guy personally deliver his blackberry, among other things. We also don't know what form his reaction took, but it would appear that he communicated in some manner his distaste for such behaviour, and presumably was let go for that.
The "blackberry incident" was cited in the article (and allegedly in the court case) as an example of the "contempt" his boss allegedly had for his beliefs.
In short, merely eating the ham sandwich yourself could, by analogy, be "evidence of contempt" for an employees' Jewish beliefs.
That goes well beyond any sort of reasonable accomodation for an employees' personal beliefs. It is one thing not to force employees to do things against their concience. It is another to allow employees some sort of veto power over the actions of others.
To be clear he's not won against his employer yet :mellow:
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 10:19:32 AM
In short, merely eating the ham sandwich yourself could, by analogy, be "evidence of contempt" for an employees' Jewish beliefs.
That goes well beyond any sort of reasonable accomodation for an employees' personal beliefs. It is one thing not to force employees to do things against their concience. It is another to allow employees some sort of veto power over the actions of others.
However, isn't the guy arguing that the issue is that the company presumably had a policy that disallowed ham sandwhiches, and yet his boss insisted on eating them anyway?
I don't know that that matters in the case of a case like this - would in fact going against company policy, even if that policy were voluntary on the part of the business, figure into a employees right to not expect to be fired for supporting that policy?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2009, 10:27:59 AM
To be clear he's not won against his employer yet :mellow:
I know. As I said above, this "victory" could be purely pyrric - the matter still must go before an adminstrative panel.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 10:28:24 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 10:19:32 AM
In short, merely eating the ham sandwich yourself could, by analogy, be "evidence of contempt" for an employees' Jewish beliefs.
That goes well beyond any sort of reasonable accomodation for an employees' personal beliefs. It is one thing not to force employees to do things against their concience. It is another to allow employees some sort of veto power over the actions of others.
However, isn't the guy arguing that the issue is that the company presumably had a policy that disallowed ham sandwhiches, and yet his boss insisted on eating them anyway?
I don't know that that matters in the case of a case like this - would in fact going against company policy, even if that policy were voluntary on the part of the business, figure into a employees right to not expect to be fired for supporting that policy?
If the allegation is that he's being fired for being a whistle-blower on internal company wrong-doing, that's a very different thing from being fired "...for his beliefs".
If he's really a whistle-blower, his personal beliefs are basically irrelevant. He can eat ham sandwiches himself all day long, belong to the ham lover's club, and still "blow the whistle" on his boss violating the workplace anti-ham policy.
That is of course assuming that there is some sort of whistle-blower protection in the applicable laws or policies - and there usually is.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 10:36:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 10:28:24 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 10:19:32 AM
In short, merely eating the ham sandwich yourself could, by analogy, be "evidence of contempt" for an employees' Jewish beliefs.
That goes well beyond any sort of reasonable accomodation for an employees' personal beliefs. It is one thing not to force employees to do things against their concience. It is another to allow employees some sort of veto power over the actions of others.
However, isn't the guy arguing that the issue is that the company presumably had a policy that disallowed ham sandwhiches, and yet his boss insisted on eating them anyway?
I don't know that that matters in the case of a case like this - would in fact going against company policy, even if that policy were voluntary on the part of the business, figure into a employees right to not expect to be fired for supporting that policy?
If the allegation is that he's being fired for being a whistle-blower on internal company wrong-doing, that's a very different thing from being fired "...for his beliefs".
If he's really a whistle-blower, his personal beliefs are basically irrelevant. He can eat ham sandwiches himself all day long, belong to the ham lover's club, and still "blow the whistle" on his boss violating the workplace anti-ham policy.
That is of course assuming that there is some sort of whistle-blower protection in the applicable laws or policies - and there usually is.
But he isn't claiming to be a whistle blower - he is just saying that the company has a policy, his bosses routinely ignore it, he made it clear he found that not cool, and got fired for it. Not really wrong-doing, per se, but still not ok (in his mind) given the supposed policy.
Obviously there is plenty of room in their policy for his boss to say that their actions were not in violation of it anyway.
Not really rising to the level of "whistle blower", but does it have to rise to that level to provide him some protection from being fired? I really don't know - this isn't criminal or even a civil suit, really?
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 10:55:13 AM
But he isn't claiming to be a whistle blower - he is just saying that the company has a policy, his bosses routinely ignore it, he made it clear he found that not cool, and got fired for it. Not really wrong-doing, per se, but still not ok (in his mind) given the supposed policy.
Obviously there is plenty of room in their policy for his boss to say that their actions were not in violation of it anyway.
Not really rising to the level of "whistle blower", but does it have to rise to that level to provide him some protection from being fired? I really don't know - this isn't criminal or even a civil suit, really?
To my mind, either he can claim to be a whistle-blower or he can't. That's the appropriate level of protection.
Again, he is either being fired for
having his beliefs - or he's not. I agree that he should not be fired merely for having his personal beliefs.
What seems to be happening is that he's falling between these two stools.
If he's being fired because his beliefs cause him to want to "enforce" company policy above and beyond the level which would get him whistle-blower protection - in effect, playing junior policy cop to the irritation of his bosses - I see no reason why that sort of thing should be protected (at any rate, protected any *more* than it would otherwise be because he's got Judge Approved "Beliefs" that are motivating him).
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 10:36:34 AM
If the allegation is that he's being fired for being a whistle-blower on internal company wrong-doing, that's a very different thing from being fired "...for his beliefs".
If he's really a whistle-blower, his personal beliefs are basically irrelevant. He can eat ham sandwiches himself all day long, belong to the ham lover's club, and still "blow the whistle" on his boss violating the workplace anti-ham policy.
That is of course assuming that there is some sort of whistle-blower protection in the applicable laws or policies - and there usually is.
How can you get whistle blower protection over internal company policy? Something like a mission statement can't possibly have the force of law.
I think it's fair to say that any set of beliefs or philosophical position, whether based on facts or belief only, can be elevated to the status of a religious approach by the person holding the belief. It becomes a religious thing not by the nature of the position held, but by the way in which the holder holds it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2009, 11:34:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 10:36:34 AM
If the allegation is that he's being fired for being a whistle-blower on internal company wrong-doing, that's a very different thing from being fired "...for his beliefs".
If he's really a whistle-blower, his personal beliefs are basically irrelevant. He can eat ham sandwiches himself all day long, belong to the ham lover's club, and still "blow the whistle" on his boss violating the workplace anti-ham policy.
That is of course assuming that there is some sort of whistle-blower protection in the applicable laws or policies - and there usually is.
How can you get whistle blower protection over internal company policy? Something like a mission statement can't possibly have the force of law.
Then being an ass about it to the boss entitles one to no protection.