We pray thanks to God for this ruling in the United Kingdom and pray the courts of the United States are paying attention to this very important case in its stand for Christianity!
On Thursday the United Kingdom Court of Appeals upheld protection of Sundays as a day of worship and rest for Christians. In a landmark judgement, the court dismissed earlier findings that Sunday observance was ‘not a core component of the Christian faith’.
In a case involving Celestina Mba, The Employment Tribunal (ET) and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) had ruled that since not all Christians observe Sunday, it could not be a ‘core component’ of the Christian faith and was not safeguarded. However, the Court of Appeal on Thursday rejected this reasoning saying that the faith of the individual believer should be recognized and in principle protected. The court recognized that Sunday observance is a valid and genuine expression of faith for many Christians and can not be simply jettisoned which is in sharp contrast to other cases in recent years.
Ms Mba resigned from her job at a children’s home operated by Merton Council after being put under pressure to work on Sundays. An employment tribunal had found that the committed Christian ‘genuinely believed’ that she had made it clear at her job interview that she was unable to work on Sundays owing to her faith. An initial agreement respected her Christian faith but after two years her employer sought to change the arrangement. Disturbingly, from 2009 forward, knowing she would refuse, Merton Council ordered Celestina to work on Sundays and then sought to discipline her.
Celestina said, “They were trying to break my faith and see if I really believed in the Lord’s Day. The Merton Council disrespected my Christian faith. I said to the Court that the Council would not treat other faiths like they treat Christians. It was like giving pork to a Muslim every meal-time and then disciplining them for not eating it! If they really needed someone to work on a Sunday, they should have recruited that person and I would have been glad to leave. I had offered to take unpopular shifts and work anti-socials in order to protect Sundays.”
Her barrister, Paul Diamon, argued that the onus was on her employer to seek reasonable accommodation for the employee and that the employer must act conscientiously. Lord Justice Maurice Kay said, “I am satisfied that there was an error of law in the decision of the ET and that it was repeated in the judgement of the EAT.”
Andrea Minichiello Williams, Barrister and Director of the Christian Legal Centre, which is supporting Ms MBA said, “We believe if the Court of Appeal had been prepared to consider the facts according to the correct test, Celestina would have won. The onus should be on the employer to reasonably accommodate their employee. However, this judgment is a big step forward for proper treatment of Christians and is an important victory. At last the courts are beginning to demonstrate greater understanding of what it means to be a Christian. Christian identity extends beyond private belief into daily life. We pray that the tide is turning.”
