Man Fired for Wearing Cross Necklace While Working at Factory
Workers wins £22,000 in compensation
A Christian factory worker in the UK who was fired for wearing a cross necklace at work has won £22,000 in compensation.
Jevgenijs Kovalkovs sued his former employer for discrimination after being fired for wearing the cross.
Kovalkovs claimed that the cross necklace had been a gift from his mother and symbolised the “commitment to his belief” in Jesus Christ.
He also told the employment tribunal that it was sanctified during a baptism ceremony for his godchild, The Telegraph reported.
As Brietbart reproted:
However, despite the company having an exception for jewellery with religious significance, Kovalkovs’ line manager at the chicken factory had told him to not wear the cross.
Upon seeing Kovalkovs wear the Christian symbol a second time, he was fired “immediately”.
The line manager referred to only as Ms McColl had argued that the necklace was a “hazard” to the production and processing of chicken.
The company’s policy stated:
“Jewellery must not be worn in the production areas on-site, with the exception of a single plan band ring.”
However, there was an exception made for religious jewellery, which was required to be subject to a “risk assessment”, which Kovalkovs claimed had not been carried out.
At the tribunal hearing in Dundee, Employment Judge Louise Cowen ruled that it was demonstrated that Mr Kovalkovs “had lost a job as a result of the discrimination towards him”.
“His religion and the wearing of his necklace were of deep and profound meaning to him,” she added.
The tribunal ruled therefore in favour of Kovalkovs to the tune of £22,074.68, finding that the policy on religious jewellery was “indirectly discriminatory”.
A spokesman for the company, Coupar Angus, said:
“We note today’s judgment and at this stage cannot comment any further.”
Earlier this year, a nurse for the National Health Service in Britain, Mary Onuoha won a case against the socialised healthcare system after she was demoted for refusing to remove her cross.
The NHS Trust in Croydon had argued that her necklace represented an risk for infecting others, while Onuoha argued that the policy was arbitrary as members of non-Christian faiths were permitted to wear relijious articles such as bracelets, hijabs and turbans.
Ruling in her favour, the tribunal found that the managers at the NHS “had a particular problem with the cross” and had shown “some form of conscious or subconscious prejudice towards the Christian faith”.