Furniture giant IKEA has lost an important court case against an employee who it fired for speaking out against ‘indoctrination’ within the company.

The employee had criticised an internal letter from the company’s management to staff which stated that it was every employee’s duty to be ‘LGBT+ inclusive,’ the European Conservative reported.

Notably, Janusz Komenda, the IKEA employee working in Krakow, used two quotes from the Bible to express his criticism. 

He was later fired.

The dismissal was first ruled unjustified by a district court then later a regional court, and most recently Poland’s Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by IKEA.

In her justification, judge Agnieszka Zielińska said that it was “unacceptable” to humiliate anyone in the work environment because of their religious beliefs.

Judge Zielińska’s decision stated:

“The workplace should be free of any ideological indoctrination… and it should not – even in the name of tolerance in the broadest sense – lead employees to feel coerced into changing their beliefs. In this case: those based on professed faith.”

Social initiatives beyond job-related duties should be voluntary, the supreme court also ruled, going on to state that IKEA was in effect defying their own “rhetoric of inclusivity” by dismissing someone for their religious beliefs and differing worldview.

The court decisions could have lasting impact on future cases involving freedom of religion, especially for those in the workplace. 

Conservative legal group Ordo Iuris, which has been representing Komenda, said the ruling was:

“... a milestone towards protecting the freedom to express one’s views and religious freedom [against] large corporations that impose left-wing ideology on their employees.”

HRLA represents Australians who face consequences in the workplace for expressing their religious or political views, including children’s psychiatrist Dr Jillian Spencer who was stood down for questioning transgender ideology in healthcare, and an employee of a large corporation who suffered career repercussions after expressing religious and political views in a private group on social media.

As the global battle for freedom of religion and free speech roles on, cases like this provide hope of a slow return to the fundamental liberties that define the West.

With significant dates for a number of HRLA cases looming, including Lyle Shelton’s, we are hopeful for decisions that will slowly restore these fundamental freedoms to Australian society.