Latest news with #wrongfuldismissal
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
Rabbi fired for sexual misconduct blamed autism
A rabbi lost a disability discrimination claim against his employer after he was sacked for sexual misconduct. Dr Moshe Freedman was fired from his post at New West End Synagogue in west London, after he 'transgressed appropriate boundaries' with a woman, the hearing was told. He was reported to police, who took no further action, but the synagogue and the local authority concluded he was guilty of sexual misconduct and fired him. Dr Freedman tried to sue United Synagogues - which oversees New West End - and Anthony Ansell and Andrew Eder, who were involved in his disciplinary process, as he believed he was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed. He also claimed he was the victim of disability discrimination, arguing that his autism was to blame for 'difficulties recognising social boundaries'. He lost all his claims and has been ordered to pay £20,000 to cover legal costs. 'Transgressed appropriate boundaries' The employment tribunal hearing in central London was told he became rabbi of New West End in March 2015. In May 2022, an incident occurred between Dr Freedman and a woman who cannot be identified for legal reasons. He was arrested by police days later and sent an email to other synagogue leaders notifying them, saying: 'There are no words to express the regret that I feel for what I have done and the catastrophic consequences this will have for everyone and everything that is dear to me. I can't say more now.' After he was suspended, the tribunal heard 'he researched any possible links between his autism and what had happened'. Police investigated the sexual misconduct allegation and took no further action. However, Westminster council's local authority designated officer [LADO] concluded that the allegation of sexual misconduct was 'substantiated' due to the consistent account provided by the complainant and due to Dr Freedman's 'part confession'. In its full decision, the tribunal quoted a heavily redacted report that was produced following Dr Freedman's suspension: 'Nevertheless, regardless of his tendency to be tactile and affectionate, my view is that Rabbi Freedman's physical contact ... clearly transgressed appropriate boundaries.' It added: 'At the time he demonstrated a lack of awareness and insight into the appropriateness of his behaviour, and consequently placed himself in a situation he did not know how to manage.' The report said 'that in some situations he finds he difficult to keep his feelings - and his behaviour - in check'. New West End Synagogue concluded he committed the allegation and sacked him in January 2023. 'Obvious reputational risk' Employment Judge Sarah Keogh dismissed all Dr Freedman's claims and said they found his actions 'transgressed boundaries' and were 'supported in this finding by the conclusions reached in the [specialist] report'. She added: 'We reject [Dr Freedman's] assertion that his behaviour at this point in time was because he... had difficulty recognising the social boundaries because of his ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorder]. '[Dr Freedman's] case at its highest was that he was confused as to the boundaries which he ought to have applied.' Judge Keogh concluded: 'In the circumstances the [synagogue] was entitled to summarily dismiss [Dr Freedman] based on seriousness of the conduct, the obvious reputational risk, and the incompatibility of what he had done with his standing as a Rabbi.'
Daily Mail
03-08-2025
- Daily Mail
Aussie worker is SACKED after calling his non-binary colleague 'he' instead of 'they'
A worker has been fired from his high-paying job after he referred to his non-binary colleague as 'he' instead of 'they'. The Perth man, 63, claimed wrongful dismissal and the case went to the Fair Work Commission, following an incident in February in which he introduced his younger co-worker at a leadership training course. It's understood the legal dispute began when the non-binary employee told their older male colleague they wanted to be referred to as 'they', and the pronoun would be written on their name badge. After the Perth man called his colleague 'he', another colleague corrected him. The 63-year-old then apologised to his younger co-worker — a biological male who identified neither as a man nor a woman. Following the exchange, relations between the colleagues remained cordial throughout the training day, The West Australian reported. The Perth man was later told by his manager that a formal complaint had been made and he was required to submit a written apology. He refused and it's understood he said no one could be ordered to call a colleague 'they'. The 63-year-old later told a Fair Work hearing that if one person had the right to use a particular pronoun, then another person had the right not to. His decision not to apologise led to further backlash from his younger co-workers, who had sided with their non-binary colleague. In March, the company launched an investigation, culminating in the Perth man's contract being terminated. He claimed his dismissal was unlawful, sought legal advice, and shared his intention to take the matter to Federal Court. The case went to the Fair Work Commission and the man was told he risked being subjected to social backlash if the matter was heard in open court. He subsequently reached a confidential settlement with his former employer. The identities of the 63-year-old man and the non-binary employee, and the name of their employer, are not publicly available information, however details of the case were leaked when lawyers discussed the implications of the case. Lawyers have said there did not appear to be a legal right for someone to be called 'they' or 'them' within the workplace, and it was up to individual companies to dictate pronoun convention. It is understood that the company who employed the 63-year-old and his non-binary colleague did not have a pronoun policy. The case is unusual because motivations were not linked with religion. The Perth man's refusal to submit a written apology was not connected to faith, but to a belief he was being forced into accepting a position on gender politics.
CTV News
30-07-2025
- Health
- CTV News
Federal Court dismisses claim military vaccine mandate led to spiritual discrimination
A Federal Court judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed by a former soldier who alleged spiritual discrimination and wrongful dismissal by the Canadian Armed Forces due to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Liam Jarbeau had spent five years in the army when, in October 2021, the chief of the defence staff introduced the mandatory vaccination policy for all military members. Jarbeau objected to the mandate, requesting an exemption based on his spiritual beliefs. The soldier's exemption request was denied, prompting him to eventually file a grievance with the Canadian Forces. Jarbeau left the military in March 2024, apparently before the grievance process was exhausted. One year later, he filed suit against the federal government, alleging the CAF had breached his Charter rights protecting him from spiritual discrimination. He also accused the military of constructive dismissal, an illegal labour practice in which an employer fundamentally alters the terms of an employee's job, such that the worker feels compelled to resign. Jarbeau further contended that undue delays in resolving his grievance denied him due process. 'Significant harm' Representing himself before the court, the former soldier told Justice William Pentney that he was denied training opportunities and promotions, and was given undesirable postings due to his unvaccinated status. He argued this hobbled his military career and ultimately prevented him from signing on to complete his remaining 18 years of service because the CAF refused to acknowledge or guard against further mistreatment. 'The Canadian Armed Forces represent far more than just a career; it is an integral part of an individual's identity,' Pentney wrote in a summary of Jarbeau's statements to the court. 'Therefore, the loss of this role, especially when imposed against his will, constitutes not just a career disruption, but a significant harm to his character and sense of self.' The Attorney General of Canada moved to strike Jarbeau's claims, arguing, in part, that he failed to identify a specific religious belief or practice that conflicted with the vaccine mandate. 'The plaintiff makes repeated references to his 'spirituality' but does not elaborate on the nature of his belief system or his adherence,' the judge wrote in his July 18 decision to strike the former soldier's claims. Jarbeau countered that the nature of his spirituality and its importance to him were detailed in his initial grievance with the military. But the judge stated that he could not consider any external evidence, including evidence within the grievance itself, while hearing the government's motion. 'The plaintiff's claim must stand or fall based on a generous reading of the pleading itself,' Pentney wrote. 'He says that this is all explained in the affidavits he submitted, but I cannot have regard to those at this stage of the analysis. Reading the claim generously, and with a view to understanding the essence of what the plaintiff asserts, I find that he has failed to plead the necessary material facts to support a cause of action.' The judge cautioned that his ruling didn't question the sincerity of Jarbeau's spiritual beliefs, saying any such finding was beyond the scope of the present hearing. Crown not contractually bound to CAF members Turning to the allegations of wrongful dismissal and denial of due process, the judge cited 'abundant' legal precedent affirming that traditional labour law remedies do not extend to members of the Canadian Forces. 'The terms of service to which CAF members are subject are unique in some respects. They can be called to perform their duties at virtually any time, in any place, and even where doing their duty will place their lives at risk,' the judge wrote. 'As a matter of law, however, they serve 'at pleasure,'' Pentney continued. 'The Crown is in no way contractually bound to the members of the Armed Forces,' and anyone who joins the military is entering a one-sided commitment with no obligations for the Crown. 'As a CAF member, the plaintiff knew that he could be posted to different locations and given different assignments,' Pentney wrote. 'The fact that he was subjected to temporary postings, even unfavourable ones, does not engage the type of security interests that Sec. 7 (of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, protecting life, liberty and security of the person) is meant to protect.' The judge further found no material basis to support the former soldier's argument that administrative delays amounted to a denial of due process, finding instead that the claims brought to the court should have been pursued fully through the military's internal grievance process. 'The record before me is incomplete as to the nature and scope of his grievance or its outcome, but there can be no doubt that he had taken the step to pursue a grievance,' the judge ruled. 'There is also no doubt that the CAF grievance process was sufficiently broad in scope to deal with all aspects of the plaintiff's claims.' The attorney general sought an order on the reimbursement of its costs in the case, but the judge denied the request, finding the former soldier 'pursued his claim in good faith and should not bear the additional costs of this motion.' 'Each party shall bear their own costs,' Pentney concluded.
Khaleej Times
27-07-2025
- Business
- Khaleej Times
UAE: Employee wins Dh1.33 million salary-repayment case against employer
The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi has partially overturned a previous labour court ruling that required a female employee to return Dh1.33 million in salaries paid during a disputed 18-month absence. The employee (the claimant), who had been working with the defendant company since February 2, 2014, under an open-ended contract with a basic monthly salary of Dh35,937 and a total package of Dh95,630, filed a labour claim after she was terminated on October 23, 2024, alleging wrongful dismissal. Her original claims included, unpaid wages amounting to Dh573,785, Compensation for arbitrary dismissal of Dh286,892, accrued leave amounting to Dh191,261, notice period pay of Dh95,630, gratuity of Dh324,330, moral and material damages of Dh500,000 and legal interest (12%) from the date of claim until full payment. The company filed a counterclaim, demanding that the employee return Dh1,338,833 allegedly received as salary during the 18-month period when she was purportedly absent without justification. Initial ruling by lower courts The Court of First Instance, in its ruling on March 10, 2025, granted the employee only a portion of her original claim, Dh103,665 (comprising leave and notice pay) and upheld the company's counterclaim, ordering the employee to return salary amounting to Dh1.33 million. The employee made and appeal of the case. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision on April 29, 2025. This prompted the employee to file a final appeal to the Court of Cassation. Court of Cassation's findings The Court of Cassation found serious errors in how the lower courts conducted the hearing and the ruling. The top court said that the lower courts failed to evaluate key evidence, including an official certificate from the Department of Health proving the employee had accompanied a patient abroad under a government-sponsored medical leave. The top court also said that the the lower courts failed to recognise the absence of any formal investigation by the employer regarding her alleged unauthorised absence. The lower courts also did not address the fact that the employer continued to pay salaries throughout the 18-month period without objection, which the Apex Court interpreted as implicit approval of her leave. The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal failed to consider the employee's good faith, as she had communicated her leave formally and provided documentation before she went on leave. The final ruling The court said that employees who receive salaries in 'good faith' under a company's own internal automatic payroll systems should not be penalised for administrative lapses if they had no role in causing the error. In its ruling on June 18, the court stated: 'The employer's claim was unsupported by evidence and lacked compliance with required legal procedures. The employee cannot be held accountable for an administrative failure she had no control over, especially after submitting valid documents and acting in good faith.' As a result, the court partially overturned the lower ruling, rejecting the company's demand for salary repayment (Dh1.33 million), and ordered the case to be closed in favour of the employee. The top court upheld the remaining parts of the lower court's ruling, including payment of Dh33,536 for unused leave and Dh70,129 as notice period pay. In total, Dh103,665 was awarded to her from the original judgement. The Court of Cassation ordered the employer to pay court fees, including Dh1,000 in attorney fees, to the employee. The employee will also be refunded the appeal deposit.
Daily Mail
20-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Controversial former ABC star who lost her job over Gaza posts makes shock career move as she joins forces with Abbie Chatfield
Controversial former ABC freelancer Antoinette Lattouf has announced she has signed with the Stage Addiction talent agency - the same agency as Abbie Chatfield. Lattouf, 45, who made headlines earlier last year after her highly-publicised wrongful dismissal case against the public broadcaster, went online last month to revealed her dramatic career move. In a post shared with her new agency, Lattouf posed for a professional photo in a stylish all-blue slacks and short outfit and included a cheeky caption. 'Who's this human headline hottie now being repped by Stage Addiction?' the Instagram post began. She added, 'Get your people to call my people etc etc.' From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the DailyMail's new showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop. Ben Grand of Stage Addiction is set to manage the broadcaster and writer, reported Sky News last month. Also included on the Stage Addiction talent roster is Cheek Media founder and TV commentator and author Hannah Ferguson and Bachelor star Matt Agnew. Lattouf, who has 118K followers, received an enthusiastic response from her fans, who filled sent messages of congratulations. 'You're such a talent. Beauty, brains, heart and comedic genius,' said one follower while Matt Agnew simply wrote 'Welcome'. 'Fearless Warrior Journalist Presenter I presume! And my absolute Hero!' said another user. Lattouf won her case for unlawful termination against the ABC, with the public broadcaster ordered to pay her $70,000 in compensation last month. The casual radio host and Palestine advocate was hired for a week-long stint on ABC Radio Sydney's Mornings program in December 2023. She was let go after just three shifts for sharing a Human Rights Watch post that said Israel was using starvation as a 'weapon of war' in Gaza. The ABC claimed it took Lattouf off the air because she failed to follow a direction not to post about Israel or the war in Gaza during her five-day shift. But Justice Darryl Rangiah, who delivered his judgement in Sydney's Federal Court In June, disagreed, finding pro-Israel lobbyists formed an 'orchestrated campaign' to pressure then-ABC chair Ita Buttrose to take Lattouf off air. He found the ABC contravened the Fair Work Act by terminating Lattouf's employment 'for reasons including that she held a political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza '. Justice Rangiah ordered the ABC to pay Lattouf compensation of $70,000, with the public broadcaster also potentially on the hook for 'pecuniary penalties' for breaking the law. In a statement to Daily Mail Australia, Lattouf boasted about her 'landmark' win.
