London Judge: Protect Environmentalism Like Religion

London Judge: Protect Environmentalism Like Religion

Animism, naturalistic pantheism, Gaia theory — there are various belief
systems that deify the natural world. But should a fervent belief in the
need to fight climate change be given the same legal protection as an actual
religion? A London judge said yes, ruling this week that
environmentalism should carry the same legal weight as religion under
Britain’s employment laws.

The case involved Tim Nicholson, 42, who was laid off last year from his job
as head of sustainability at Grainger Plc, Britain’s largest residential-property company. Nicholson contended he was laid off because his views on
the environment were not shared by Grainger executives, and he sued the
company for unfair dismissal under Britain’s six-year-old Religion and
Belief Regulations, which make it unlawful to discriminate against a person
on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs. Grainger argued
that Nicholson’s climate-change convictions did not qualify for protection
under the law. But in a landmark ruling on Nov. 3, Justice Michael Burton
found 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 law].”

Nicholson, who now works for an organization lobbying for greener health
care, tells TIME he feels the decision is a victory for those pushing for
corporate responsibility. “Organizations that already take sustainability
seriously, they have nothing to fear from this judgment,” he says. “There
are so many positive reasons why companies should take steps to reduce their
consumption of fossil fuels, this decision only adds to an already
substantial list.”

Nicholson’s case came about because of a peculiarity of British law.
Prior to 2003, Britain had no statute that protected employees from
religious discrimination. The Religion and Belief Regulations were meant to
remedy this. But because the law offered only a vague definition of
“religious or philosophical beliefs,” it has fallen to judges to interpret it
and define which beliefs deserve protection. In the most important ruling so
far, Burton’s generous interpretation of the law will have far-ranging and
complicated ramifications, employment experts say.

Caroline Doran, an employment specialist at the London law firm Sprecher
Grier Halberstam LLP, tells TIME the decision will “result in a tidal wave
of philosophical-related litigation to employment tribunals.” And because
employees claiming unfair dismissal on the grounds of discrimination are
entitled to much higher payouts than those with standard claims, the strain
on employers could be immense.

“The concept of philosophical beliefs is so wide that it will open a
Pandora’s box for employers and give individuals a foothold to obtain six-
and seven-figure ‘jackpot’ payouts,” Doran says. “It is only a matter of
time before an employee with a marginal philosophical belief will get a
million-pound payout after his exceptional views were not appreciated by
management or colleagues.”

But not all experts agree. Victoria Phillips, head of employment law at the
London firm Thompson’s Solicitors, says Burton’s ruling laid out several
tests to prevent frivolous claims: to qualify for protection, beliefs must
focus on a weighty and substantial aspect of human life, they must have a
certain level of seriousness and importance, and they must be worthy of
respect in a democratic society and not be in conflict with the fundamental
rights of others. Along with climate change, “the political philosophies of
socialism, Marxism, communism or free-market capitalism might qualify,”
Burton said in his ruling. But he noted that fringe beliefs — the
belief in the supreme nature of Jedi knights, for example — would not
qualify for protection.

“I certainly would advise companies to be careful about how they treat
employees with strongly held political beliefs, but I think common sense
will prevail,” Phillips says. “There were similar concerns among employers
about a flood of claims when a law was brought in to protect whistle-blowers
in 1998. But the courts have been pretty astute at seeing through bogus
claims. I suspect a similar situation with this law.”

Nicholson had argued that he was dismissed because his views on how to make
the company environmentally sustainable had put him at odds with other
senior staff at Grainger and had been ignored by managers. The Independent newspaper reported that Nicholson ran afoul of
executives when he complained that the CEO had ordered an employee to fly
from London to Ireland to deliver a BlackBerry he had left behind. Nicholson
must now appear before a British employment tribunal with his former
employers and prove that he was laid off because of his environmental
beliefs, not corporate restructuring. The tribunal will then decide if he’s
eligible for compensation.

Dave Butler, Grainger’s director of corporate affairs, said in a statement
that the decision to lay off Nicholson was driven solely by “the operational
needs of the company during a period of extraordinary market turbulence.
Grainger rejects outright any suggestion that there was any other motivation
relating to Mr. Nicholson’s beliefs or otherwise.”

Whatever the outcome of the case, climate campaigners can at least take
heart in knowing that in British employment courts, if nowhere else, the
earth is considered a holy place.

See TIME’s Pictures of the Week.

See the Cartoons of the Week.