Photo: Shutterstock
An employment judge has ruled that Stoicism – a Hellenistic philosophy from the third century BC – is a protected characteristic as he considered the case of a former Lidl supermarket worker who was sacked after offending colleagues.
Communications worker Samuel Jackson argued that his philosophical beliefs, formulated by Zeno of Citium in around 300BC and taught in ancient Athens, meant he must adhere to the truth without fear of offending other people.
Judge Simon Cheetham, at Croydon employment tribunal in south London, agreed that Stoicism was a belief protected under the Equality Act 2000, and allowed Mr Jackson’s discrimination claim to proceed to the next stage.
Employment tribunals
Train guard sacked for ‘shooting his mouth off’ was unfairly dismissed
All employment tribunal stories at Personnel Today
Average wait time for tribunal stands at nine months, claim lawyers
Mr Jackson told the hearing, held virtually over two days this month, that his Stoic beliefs meant he was bound to say what he liked, no matter how offensive, without moral or ethical repercussions. However, he had been sacked after saying that “Asians were greasy” and for failing to “apologise sufficiently”, his managers at Lidl not being overly impressed by his ancient beliefs.
The claimant explained to the tribunal: “The realisation that the consequence of what I say would cause offence would not stop me from saying it.”
The judge agreed with Mr Jackson’s description of himself as “not being a consequentialist, by which he meant that the consequences of what he says or does would not prevent him from saying or doing that thing”.
Stoicism was “just one of innumerable schools of thought attempting to answer the most profound questions”, he added. He said Mr Jackson had “demonstrated this through his contextualisation of Stoicism alongside the major religions”.
“I found him to be a truthful witness,” the judge concluded.
Mr Jackson is also claiming against Lidl for disability discrimination. He said that he was dyslexic so “mixed up his words” and could not properly apologise. His application to be treated as a disabled person was also successful.
However, the judge dismissed Mr Jackson’s claims of direct disability discrimination and direct discrimination because of religion or belief as having “no reasonable prospect of success”.
The tribunal allowed claims of indirect belief and disability discrimination to proceed to a full hearing. A date for the final hearing in which the claims will be heard is yet to be set.
According to the Stamford encyclopedia of philosophy, Stoics held that emotions like fear or envy (or passionate love of anything) were false judgements and that the sage – a person who had attained moral and intellectual perfection – would not undergo them. The encyclopedia states: “Though it seems clear that some Stoics took a kind of perverse joy in advocating views which seem so at odds with common sense, they did not do so simply to shock.”
Unfortunately, the court will of course be unable to draw on Zeno of Citium’s views of Mr Jackson’s case.
How strange if a follower of Zeno turns out to be xenophobic!
His actions go against the stoic principal, ‘Only say what’s not better left unsaid’ and the core virtue of kindness. He does not know Stoicism at all.
This guy is not a stoic. Stoics believe silence is golden. That one should only speak generally only if necessary. That doesn’t sound like a necessary thing to say. He’s just using it as an excuse to be rude. Stoics also believe in doing intense reflection and working on oneself daily to pursue excellence and the highest version of oneself. Again he is missing the mark. Lastly stoics believe in taking responsibility which again looks like he is not doing that either.
Sounds like that lad might have failed to grasp some very basic principles of Stoicism.
Hiding behind the ancient teachings of Zeno or any ancient teaching, for that matter, to spout off racist, xenophobic and misogynist is not acceptable and certainly, must not be inconsequential!.
I’m Canadian and not versed in UK law . . . I assume “indirect discrimination” means that they would be found to discriminate, but not as a matter of policy and maybe not even on purpose. Will barristers be able to argue whether this guy is at all correct in the beliefs he holds–that is, whether they are what he says they are? Surely even if your religion requires you to be a racist ass, other employee’s right to be free of racial harassment would win the day?
Also, as a practicing Stoic myself, this guy is what you call a “Broic”–using Stoicism to excuse his own anti-social, selfish bullshit. The philosophy may at times encourage going against the herd, but the highest duty is to humanity as a whole, and that means acting for the benefit of all. I’d like to see him justify how his racist behaviour does that.