Why the Israel Folau case might set an vital precedent for employment regulation and spiritual freedom
Israel Folau is claiming that Rugby Australia unlawfully sacked him due to his faith. The organisation, nevertheless, contends the rugby star violated the phrases of its code of conduct by discriminating in opposition to LGBTQ individuals.
Former Wallabies rugby star Israel Folau is the most recent in a collection of Australian workers to lose their jobs due to social media posts in recent times.
By way of a mixture of frequent regulation guidelines and broadly expressed codes of conduct, employers have more and more been capable of management their employees’ personal actions, together with on social media.
However what makes Folau’s case completely different is that it units up a conflict between employment contract regulation and authorized protections in opposition to discrimination on the idea of faith.
This might set an vital employment regulation precedent for future instances like this, which is particularly contentious at a time when non secular freedom is being so fiercely debated in Australia.
What declare has Folau introduced?
Rugby Australia terminated Folau’s employment contract final month after a tribunal decided his actions had breached the organisation’s code of conduct. The offending behaviour was an Instagram publish by Folau in April, warning homosexuals (amongst others): “Hell Awaits You. Repent! Solely Jesus Saves.”
Folau has now introduced a declare below Part 772 of the Truthful Work Act alleging the termination was due to his faith and, due to this fact, illegal.
The applying argues that as a manifestation of his Christian faith, together with common church attendance and preaching, Folau is:
…compelled to speak the phrase of God and the message contained inside the Bible.
In keeping with media retailers, he’s claiming round A$5 million in misplaced wage and a further A$5 million in compensation for different missed alternatives, together with sponsorships.
What the Truthful Work Act says in instances like this
Rugby Australia maintains that Folau was dismissed not due to his non secular beliefs, however as a result of he breached the participant code of conduct.
The code is typical of that of many companies. It requires gamers to deal with everybody equally and with dignity, no matter their sexual orientation; to not use social media to breach anticipated requirements of behaviour; and to not make public feedback or in any other case act opposite to one of the best pursuits of the sport.
What makes Folau’s declare distinctive is that it will depend on the courtroom’s view of whether or not he was dismissed for causes that included his faith, as specified below Part 772 of the Truthful Work Act.
This declare might be simpler for Folau to show than one other a part of the Truthful Work Act generally relied upon in discrimination instances, Part 351.
Case regulation tells us that Part 351 requires the worker to show an employer was motivated to discriminate in opposition to her or him due to faith. So, if an employer can level to an worker’s breach of their employment obligations as the rationale for dismissal – as a substitute of a discriminatory motive – then the worker’s declare fails.
In distinction, below Part 772, Folau solely has to indicate that his faith was merely among the many causes for the dismissal.
Nevertheless, to be able to make his case, he will even must reveal that his Instagram publish constituted an train of his faith.
There are some huge inquiries to be resolved right here: how far does an individual’s proper of spiritual expression lengthen? Does being a Christian essentially imply you may specific the views of your religion in any public discussion board?
And does it enable Folau to precise his views in the way in which that he did (noting that he says he was merely quoting from the Bible)?
Are there any precedents in case regulation?
Discrimination regulation doesn’t assist us out a lot right here.
Varied state and territory legal guidelines defend an individual from being discriminated in opposition to as a result of non secular “perception”, “conviction” or “exercise.” Nevertheless, the case regulation exhibits that solely sure traits of those that observe a specific faith fall inside these protections, for instance, a Hindu who practices fasting, or a Sikh carrying a turban. Earlier instances haven’t handled the query of speech related to an individual’s faith.
For additional steering, we are able to flip to instances involving an worker’s proper to precise political views. However right here, too, we discover a little bit of a combined bag.
Lecturers seemingly have extra latitude to precise political views as a result of their free speech rights are backed up by “mental freedom” clauses present in most college enterprise agreements.
This enabled former James Prepare dinner College physics professor Peter Ridd to efficiently contest his dismissal for public feedback important of local weather science. Tutorial freedom was additionally behind the declare mooted by La Trobe College’s Roz Ward, who was suspended in 2016 for social media feedback criticising the “racist Australian flag,” earlier than the college finally backed down.
By comparability, federal public servants are topic to very restrictive insurance policies curbing their free speech rights.
Nevertheless, the case of former Division of Immigration official Michaela Banerji exhibits that public service workers might be able to depend on the implied constitutional freedom of political communication. She received a employees’ compensation case on the idea that her dismissal for nameless tweets criticising authorities insurance policies breached her constitutional rights. The federal authorities is now contesting that ruling within the Excessive Court docket.
New territory for employment regulation
Exterior the educational and public sector contexts, we don’t but have a definitive ruling on the obvious battle between an employer’s proper to manage workers’ social media feedback and the protections of spiritual or political freedom present in discrimination regulation.
Many of those instances settle out of courtroom, corresponding to Angela Williamson’s declare in opposition to Cricket Australia for unfair termination following tweets she despatched that had been important of Tasmanian authorities coverage on entry to abortion.
It’s extremely doubtless settlement will likely be reached within the Folau case, as nicely. But when it does go to trial, I believe the employer’s contractual proper to impose requirements of behaviour will trump the rugby star’s proper to precise his non secular views.
Court docket rulings have tended to favour employers looking for to implement their behavioural insurance policies and codes, together with the regulation of workers’ personal actions. The Folau case is a vital alternative to see whether or not the fitting to precise non secular views can halt the regular march of employer management within the period of social media.
Written by Anthony Forsyth, Professor of Office Legislation, RMIT College
This text is republished from The Dialog below a Artistic Commons license. Learn the unique article.