In 2019, IKEA published an article on its company intranet that imposed the ideological demands of the LGBT movement on its employees.
In response, Janusz Komenda published a comment criticizing the announcement and included two Bible verses referring to homosexual practices.
As a result, store management decided to dismiss him. The consequences extended to those who had “liked” Komenda’s comment.
The Regional Court for Kraków-Nowa Huta ruled that his termination was unlawful and ordered his reinstatement. IKEA appealed the decision. However, the Regional Court in Kraków upheld the original ruling, stating that the dismissal was unjustified. The court reasoned that:
The Supreme Court ultimately refused to accept IKEA’s cassation appeal (decision I PSK 62/24). It concurred with the lower courts that requiring employees to participate in social initiatives as a matter of company policy exceeds the boundaries of employment duties. The Court emphasized that:
The Court’s opinion stated:
“An employer may invite an employee to participate in an initiative aligned with the company’s values, but exerting any form of pressure on the employee’s decision is impermissible, as occurred in this case.
(...) If we define an inclusive culture as one that fully integrates diverse employees through representation, openness, and fairness, then the exclusion of the plaintiff from the employee community due to his religious beliefs and differing worldview contradicts the appellant’s own rhetoric of inclusivity.”
Paweł Szafraniec, of the Ordo Iuris Center for Litigation Intervention, remarked:
“With this decision, the Supreme Court strengthens the barrier against big companies imposing leftist ideology on their employees—disciplining and ultimately firing those who refuse to conform.
This goes beyond the proper scope of an employment relationship. The Court also reinforces the right of Christians to defend their values, especially in Poland, where they make up a significant part of society. The Supreme Court’s ruling finally closes Mr. Komenda’s case.”