Name: Julia Charles

I.D number: 15CHAJ00042

To: Mr. Jon Snowden

From: Julia Charles

Date: 9th March 2017

RE: Daena Targaryen. Discrimination against her on the ground of her religion

ISSUES

Under the constitutional law and case law, whether Daena Targaryen can make a

successful claim against her supervisor, Cecelia Lannister or by extension, her employers

in relation to the issues of discrimination on the grounds of religion?

BRIEF ANSWER

No. In my legal opinion, I therefore submit that Daena Targaryen can not make a

successful claim to seek redress against her employers for the breach of right to be

protected from discrimination on the basis of his religion or creed.

FACTS

Our client Daena Targaryen is a registered nurse who is employed by the Government of

the Commonwealth of Dominica at the Princess Margaret Hospital. She stated that she is

a Seventh Day Adventist believer and according to her faith, she is not supposed to work

on the Sabbath. However, her supervisor, Cecelia Lannister, insists on scheduling

Daena’s shifts on Saturdays. Daena feels that her supervisor, and by extension her

employers, are discriminating against her on the ground of her religion. She desires to

know whether she is entitled to take legal action against them.

DISCUSSION

Page 1
 Name: Julia Charles
I.D number: 15CHAJ00042
The issue is whether Daena Targaryen is entitled to take legal action against her

employers for discriminating her on the grounds of her religious beliefs.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the ultimate source of power and

authority. According to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Dominica:

Section 9 subsection 1 states that except with his own consent, a person shall not be

hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, including freedom of thought

and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in

community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his

religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

In accordance with this section, our client must show evidence that her employers

prevented her from enjoying her freedom of religion, hindered her freedom to change her

religion and her freedom to manifest her belief in worship etc. Based on the facts

presented by our client, her supervisor Cecelia Lannister did not infringed the rights and

freedoms that were guaranteed to her in this section. None of her employers attempted to

force her to change or hold a particular belief. Accordingly, we cannot establish that there

has been a breach of this section on that basis.

Section 9 subsection 4 states that a person is not compelled to take any oath which is

contrary to his belief or religion or to take any oath in a manner which is contrary to his

religion or belief.

In relation to our client’s case, if she felt uncomfortable with her professional duties or

she felt that her professional duties were conflicting with her religious beliefs she has the

choice of resigning from her duties. No one can force her to take an oath that is contrary

to her beliefs. Thus this section of law has not been contravened.

Page 2
 Name: Julia Charles
I.D number: 15CHAJ00042
Section 13 subsection 2 states that no person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner

by any person or authority.

Relative to our client, Daena Targaryen must prove to the court that she was treated

unfairly by her employers because of her religious beliefs and that had she been a

member of another church she would have been treated differently. However, since our

client is a registered nurse it is not unusual that her shift schedule changes regularly and

so does the schedules of other registered nurses especially in the occurrence of

emergencies. Therefore, this matter is not unconstitutional to her religious beliefs.

According to Imran Jean v A.G et al SLU HCV (2008)/0790, the claimant Imran St.

Jean a fire officer who was employed by the Ministry at the St. Lucia Fire Services

Department was a member of the Seventh Day Adventist church and in accordance with

his faith he is not supposed to work on the Sabbath i.e. Saturday. He stated that his

employer imposed a shift rotation which required him to work every Saturday. He also

stated that the defendant acknowledged in its defence that his rights to freedom of

religion had been infringed but considered that accommodating him would mean that

other firemen would be placed at a disadvantage. The claimant who was displeased with

this shift alteration as it was contradictory to his beliefs exempted himself from his duties

on several occasion without the permission of the Permanent Secretary or Head

Department. He was therefore, found guilty of conduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of

the conditions of his employment. The claimant later being dissatisfied with the outcome

filed a claim against the defendant seeking damages on the grounds that certain of his

fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Section 1, 9 and 13 of the St.

Lucia Constitution Order 1978 have been; are being or are likely to be contravened. The

Page 3
 Name: Julia Charles
I.D number: 15CHAJ00042
court held that the claimant has failed to demonstrate that there has in fact been a breach

of his rights and freedoms and his claim was accordingly dismissed and consequently, the

court ruled in the favour of the defendants.

The Principle laid out in this case Imran Jean v A.G et al SLU HCV (2008)/0790, is that

firstly, that not all rights and freedoms are absolute and in a pluralistic society

accommodations must be made for society to function effectively. Secondly, an

employee has certain obligations that are owed to his or her employer in particular the

rules which govern work. Thirdly, that in order for a policy, rule or treatment to be

deemed discriminatory it must be applied selectively. Lastly, it is widely recognized that

the Fire Service is well within the law of setting a rotational schedule to govern its

officers. And the fact those hours may entail having to work on a day that is inconvenient

to him or on his day of worship for that this matter is not a breach of rights to manifest

his religious beliefs.

Likewise, our client a registered nurse who just like the Claimant in Imran Jean v A.G et

al SLU HCV (2008)/0790 can agree that their job description entails providing assistance

to persons in emergencies. The rotation of her schedule is not uncommon in her line of

work and some of these changes may include having to work on a day that is

inconvenient for her or in this case is her day of worship. For this reason is a safe to

conclude that her employers did not breach her right to manifest her religious beliefs and

therefore this claim will not successful.

Similarly in the case of Konttinen v Finland (1996), the court held that the State Railways

was entitled to rely on its employment contract which the applicant signed without

reservation in 1986. Having joined the Seventh Day Adventist Church in 1991, the

Page 4
 Name: Julia Charles
I.D number: 15CHAJ00042
claimant was free to relinquish his work if he considered that his professional duties were

not reconcilable with his religious convictions. It was held that dismissing the applicant’s

suggestion to transfer him another post and changing his shift schedules on the basis that

it would have led to inconveniences for the employer and the applicant’s colleagues, the

State Railways did not arbitrarily disregard his freedom of religion. In view of that, the

case was dismissed and the court ruled in the favour of the defendants.

CONCLUSION

Based on the facts and the relevant case law presented, I can safely conclude that our

client, Daena Targaryen does not have a cause of action against her employers for

discrimination on the grounds of her religion. The court will consider the date when the

employment contract was signed, the date when she joined the Seventh Day Adventist

Church and the terms of the employment contract to determine whether she owes a duty

to her employers and if not, she can be relinquished from her work at anytime she desires

when she considers her professional duties to be contradictory to her religious beliefs.

She must also provide evidence or demonstrate to the court that her employers or her

supervisor Cecelia Lannister attempted to change her belief or force her to hold a

particular belief in order to establish whether there has been a breach of that section on

that basis. Consequently, Daena Targaryen will not be awarded damages as there is

insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation of discrimination on the ground of her

religious beliefs.

Page 5