JW in Canada wins $30k for not wanting to place Christmas decorations

by Dogpatch 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Oroborus21

  Greetings!

  This is one of those legal cases that highlights the sometimes disparity between what is legal and what is practical or even ethical/moral.

  JAVA: the problem for the employer was that the requested conduct was 1) not intrinsic to the nature of the business nor a necessary job function (this is different then say an Amish girl wanting to work at Hooters or a JW wanting to be a policeman) and 2) evidently there was no prior history during the employment where the employee had been asked to do the offending task which is a factor.

  What is probably troubling to many people is how minimal the offensive task SEEMS to the average reasonable person. I mean putting out some poinsettas which took 10 seconds! But legally, speaking it doesn't matter how small the thing may seem. Some may see that standing and saluting the flag or saying the pledge of allegiance is a minor thing, doesn't involve much; but some including JWS (and atheists) may find it objectionable and a violation of their concience.

  What is outrageous to the average reasonable person, including me, is that it is a fundamental principle of law that the "compensation" should equal the "injury". thus in this case the JW should have won, received a legal declaration in his favour and maybe if it was required under Canadian law to give a monetary award been awarded $1 as nominal damages. (No punitive damages should have been awarded)

  there is a happy medium and reasonable grounds in situations such as these and it is up to the judges and juries to inject a little common sense into the legal system that works most of the time.

  You do however, raise a very good issue. There are certain things that certain Employers would be shocked to learn, such as that patient/client confidentially might be compromised by a JW with access to such information. (Example, JW employee in medical lab notices that an STD test is positive (including after retesting) and recognizes the patient's id to be a single JW active in her congregation. She feels it is her higher duty to (secretly) inform the Elders contrary to explicit employer and state/federal laws that require patient confidentiality.) these issues are much more important than the one presented in this thread.

  This thread deals with labour and civil rights law that is applicable to everyone. In that case the decision is a good one as it protects the rights of all.

  -Eduardo

  PS: to Simon, your assertion that you should get $30K from (the WTS?) for their not "allowing you to put up Christmas decorations" is cute but off-base here. This is a situation dealing with an employer-employee relationship and applicable civil rights laws. Totally different from a person's willing membership in a voluntary organization where the "Rules" and requirements for recognized membership are not only explicitly spelled out, intrinsic to membership but probably made aware to you before you joined.
• 

  xenawarrior

  Although I do think the case was decided correctly I find some real hypocrisy here. JW's are supposed to keep themselves separate from the world with regard to politics and government but then want to avail themselves of the powers of those very institutions with the result of monetary gain? This wasn't a case of "rendering unto Caesar"- this person went to them!
• 

  jeanniebeanz

  30K is an obscene amount of money to award an individual for such a matter. Civil rights or not, this was ridiculous and completely un-fair to the employer.

  Jeannie
• 

  AlanF

  I agree with Oroborus that the JW should have received $1 for his trouble. The employer would have learned a lesson in Canadian Political Correctness.

  However, I doubt that the Canadian Court would have been so quick to award an employee damages if the tables were turned. Suppose that some non-JWs are employed by a firm run by JWs and employing lots of JWs. Suppose the non-JWs decide to put up Christmas decorations, as lots of people do. Suppose the JW employer objects on religious grounds, and threatens to fire the non-JWs if they don't comply with his demand to remove the decorations. There is a clear conflict between religious rights here. Will a Canadian court rule that the JWs have the greater right to be free of having to see things objectionable to them? Or will it rule that the JWs have to put up with a minor inconvenience -- similar to how the Court ruled in the case where the JW objected to putting up Christmas decorations? I suspect the former, because Political Correctness, so far as I can see, unfairly bends over backwards to give more protection to oddball minorities than to normal mainstream sensibilities.

  It is this overreaching, and extremely stupid, Political Correctness that results in the violation of the religious rights of people like ex-JWs, whose rights are violated by the institutional shunning required by the Watchtower Society.

  AlanF
• 

  Oroborus21

  Xenawarrior: See Legally Establishing and Defending the Good News. JWs believe that in the manner of Paul who "appeale his arrest to Caesar" as was his right as a Roman Citizen under Roman law, so a Christian may make use and benefit from the legal system. JWs have always, in championing their own rights, been leaders in securing civil rights in the area of free exercise of religion and free speech that have benefited everyone. We also pay taxes and drive on the roads, and call 911 in an emergency. Being politically neutral does not mean refusing all forms of the benefits and responsibilites that entailed in living under the "Superior Authorities."

  AlanF: Nice hypo. I believe that the court would rule in favour of the JW employer in your hypo. Mostly, because an employee is quite limited with what he or she can AFFIRMATIVELY do on their own volition and initiative. Especially in past cases dealing with decorating your "so-called personal space" (whether with a pin-up calendar or menorah) the courts have basically said YOU HAVE NO PERSONAL SPACE AT WORK. Everying is the employer's property, the phone, computer, desk, cabinet, walls, etc. Thus an employee has no RIGHT to do something on the employer's property without the employer's permission. (But make sure to differ this from situations where a group starts a bible study group or somethng like that and meet in the employer's cafeteria or a meeting room during lunch. in situations lke that the employer has chosen to allow the use of the meeting room and would probably have to be fair and non discriminatory to other groups. - but I digress.)

  As I say above, the law usually seems to not permit an employee to do something against an employee's wishes but it does often protect the employee's right NOT TO DO SOMETHING that the employee wishes. (example this case). In these situations the test will be whether there is knowledge/history before hand (not just merely presumption or constructive knowledge but rather actual knowledge and moreover, written policies or rules/guidelines, etc.) and more importantly whether the thing is intrinsic to the business of the employer. More intrinsic the better. More tangential or merely coincidental the less forceful the employer's ability to enforce.

  Looking at this case, if I am recalling correctly, (and I am only reading what is here, I haven't read the actual case facts) this was a drugstore that the guy worked at. Putting poinsettas out to decorate the place had nothing to do with the business or only a very slight benefit to the business.

  Had this guy worked at a nursery or greenhouse or floral shop, he would have lost the case.f

  -Eduardo
• 

  willyloman

  A good lawyer would have used that December WT from a few years ago, the one that talks about how a wife must buy and wrap presents, put up a tree, and cook Christmas dinner if her husband insists. It's a subjection issue, they decreed. Isn't 'subjection' an issue at work as well? Surely a reasonable dub would conclude that this is the exact same thing!
• 

  Cygnus

  Eduardo, nice to see you and it is a pleasure to read your posts.

  The law aside, the JW was simply being a dick. I know of a lot of JWs who gladly consent to keep in the good graces of their employers by bending WTS' rules for the sake of their employment.

  By the same token, several years ago when my JW parents operated a store, they did not put St. Nick or Frosty the Snowman in the windows but just decorated with 12 inch snowflakes. The elders told them to take them down as apparently snowflakes are associated with Christmas. My parents told them where they could put the snowflakes once spring came.
• 

  Whiskeyjack

  Pierre Trudeau's legacy lives on!

  The Canadian Supreme Court's role has indeed changed in the last couple of decades (up here, the judges are just appointed by the party in power at the time with no vetting in regards to their degree of conservatism/liberalism) and Parliamentarians are getting quite annoyed with their interpretations' (pretty "liberal" bunch on the bench right now) effect on existing legistlation.

  The Canadian Charter certainly lacks specificity and coupled with a truly multi-cultural reality (half of all Toronto residents weren't born in this country) has led to widespread attempts at social engineering by the federal and some provincial governments (particularly in Liberal dominated legislatures) to "steal a march" on further court decisions. This is probably the best legal system to be a "witness" in right now (even "better than Europe), even in Quebec.

  Do we know which court reviewed the case (this sort of thing usually goes to the tribunal system first)?

  W.
• 

  Oroborus21

  Hey Cynus/James?!

  cool to see you. I agree. Actually, the most frequent bend that I personally always found difficult is to tell a "white lie" for the employer.

  For example, it is very common for someone to call and ask for your boss/supervisor, etc. or even a co-worker and it is common that the person will whisper "say I am busy" or "say I am out of the office" (sometimes the boss will just say, "if anyone calls today tell them I am out of the office.")

  What is the poor good JW to do?

  I agree with you in this situation, what a stupid thing to make a big deal about putting out some poinsettas that took 10 seconds. I think most JWs would not view it as a contradiction of their faith if their boss requested them to do that or even more.

  Also consider that JW teaching says that a JW in a business setting or that deals with the public on their job, in the situation where a known disfellowshipped one comes in or calls in etc. or has business -- well the JW must deal with them same as anyone else.

  It would then seem that to a reasonable degree of course a JW should be prepared to comply with the employer's wishes even if it means such minor compromises or something they would not choose to do.

  Too bad the employer didn't require the employees to say "Happy Holidays" or "Welcome to Wal-Mart and Merry Christmas" to everyone.

  You know we could find examples in the Bible..I am especially thinking of the Book of Esther where Nehemiah and Esther were required to do several things that were "worldy" because the king required it. I think even serving as royal cupbearer was questionable. And in Daniel, the three hebrews probably had to use their given babylonian names, Meshach, Shedrach and Abenego which were all contained references to a false god but there is no indication that they refused to be called that or to answer to those names - in fact the opposite is given.

  Anyways no need to belabor the point.

  The bottom line for me is that this brother was pretty stupid, even if he got 30k out it. I wonder if he still has a job or not?

  If he does, You can bet that he will be fired for the first legitimate reason that arises.

  If he is still working , You can also bet that the next time the guy wants a favour from his employer, such as time off to attend an assembly for example, that the answer is not going to be favourable.

  Some people never learn when to pick their battles.

  -Eduardo