INTRODUCTION ON EMPLOYER PREROGATIVE & EMPLOYEE RIGHTS

Musa had always been a devout Muslim. His faith shaped how he spoke, dressed, ate, and even ran his flourishing logistics company. Everyone in his office knew pork wasn’t allowed on the premises. It was his rule, though not written anywhere, but an extension of his religious identity.

Then came Katy.

Katy was a transgender who had recently transitioned and proudly embraced her new identity. Confident, outspoken, and eager to work, she frequently brought meals to the office, meals Musa found deeply offensive. Pork. Sausages. Bacon. Every day the smell drifted across the office, unsettling Musa’s religious conscience. One afternoon, overwhelmed by disgust, Musa snapped: “Please ‘sir’, stop bringing that thing here. If you cannot respect my beliefs, maybe this job isn’t for you.”

Katy, insisting on being referred to as a female, reported the incident.

And suddenly Musa found himself face to face with Nigeria’s constitutional reality: an employer may have deeply held religious beliefs, but an employee also has constitutional rights that cannot be swallowed by personal morality.

Employers’ Perogavtives v Employees’ Constitutional Rights

The tension of employer prerogatives versus constitutional equality is becoming one of the most pressing labour law dilemmas in Nigeria and globally today. Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) 1999, guarantees freedom from discrimination on grounds of sex, gender, religion, or circumstances of birth.

Yet employers often justify discriminatory decisions by invoking workplace rules, company culture, or personal convictions. The courts, especially the National Industrial Court, now stand at the centre of reconciling these competing interests.

This article examines how far an employer’s discretion can go before it crosses the constitutional line, drawing on judicial guidance from Nigerian case law and comparative decisions.

Historically, Nigerian employment law granted employers broad managerial discretion. Courts routinely described employment as master-servant, giving employers wide latitude to hire, fire, discipline, issue workplace policies and control work environment and operation.

To a large extent, these wide powers are still the order of the day but as labour relations evolved, Nigerian courts began limiting employer discretion where it violates constitutional rights or fairness.

Under modern Nigerian labour jurisprudence especially post 2010 employee rights have moved from contract-based protections to constitutionally anchored protections. In the case of Ebere Onyekachi Aloysius V. Diamond Bank [2015] 59 NLLR (Pt. 119) 92 at 105, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) limited the employer’s otherwise open-ended power to bring the contract of employment to an end, relying on international labour standards and its new mandate under the Constitution (Third Alteration) Act, decided that no termination of a contract of employment should take place unless there is a valid reason connected with the capacity or conduct of the employee or based on the operational requirements of the establishment.

Asides section 42 against discrimination, workplace bullying, humiliation, harassment, or demeaning conversations between boss and employee have been held to be conditions which violate the right to dignity, pursuant to section 34 CFRN. This is the doctrine of constructive dismissal and it has been recognised, adopted and applied by our Labour Courts.

The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) in Miss Ebere Ukoji v. Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co. Ltd. [2014] 47 NLLR (Pt. 154) 53, held that constructive dismissal or constructive discharge, occurs when an employee resigns because of their employer’s behaviour has become intolerable or made life difficult that the employee has no choice but to resign. Given that the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is in effect a termination.

Thus, where an employer makes life extremely difficult for an employee, to attempt to have the employee resign, rather than outright firing the employee, the employer is trying to create a constructive discharge. A constructive dismissal leads to employee acquiring the right to seek legal compensation against the employer.

Employer Prerogative & Employee Rights, Employer Prerogative & Employee Rights

What then constitutes “workplace discrimination”?

Workplace discrimination in Nigeria reflects a complex interaction of constitutional guarantees, statutory protections, judicial interpretation, and often the persistent social biases of employers and co-workers. At its core, discrimination arises when an employee is treated less favourably for reasons unrelated to competence or performance, but rather because of characteristics such as religion, gender, disability, belief, political opinion, ethnicity, or other personal attributes. The National Industrial Court has consistently affirmed that the Nigerian workplace is not a moral vacuum where employers may impose personal, religious, or ideological preferences on employees.

A major challenge lies in the power imbalance between employers and employees. Many Nigerian workers lack job security, belong to informal sectors, or work without written contracts. Employees who experience discrimination, including those dismissed for religious, gender, or identity-based reasons, often fear retaliation or blacklisting if they pursue legal remedies. The NICN’s jurisdiction provides a pathway for justice, yet many workers lack awareness of their rights or the resources to seek redress. Even when they do, employers frequently defend discriminatory decisions under the guise of organisational restructuring, loss of confidence, or non-performance, making the discriminatory motive difficult to prove.

In Ejieke Maduka v. Microsoft Nigeria Ltd & Ors NICN/LA/492/2012, the NICN found the employer liable for sexual harassment, recognizing it as a breach of the employee’s fundamental right to dignity under both national and international law. Also in Folarin Oreka Maiya v. The Incorporated Trustees of Clinton Health Access Initiative, Nigeria & Ors (2012) 27 NLLR (Pt. 76) 110 NIC, the NICN awarded damages for unfair dismissal based on pregnancy, reinforcing protection against gender-based discrimination.

These cases demonstrate the court’s willingness to apply international best practices and conventions, even when Nigerian law lacks explicit provisions on issues like sexual harassment and view them as violations of fundamental rights to dignity and freedom from discrimination.

The celebrated Australian case Christian Youth Camps Ltd v. Cobaw Community Health Services Ltd is a powerful comparative illustration. Although not a Nigerian decision, it elegantly demonstrates the universal principle that organisations, even religiously affiliated ones, cannot impose discriminatory exclusions. In that case, a Christian campsite refused to host a program for LGBT youth, citing religious objections. The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the refusal amounted to unlawful discrimination because commercial enterprises must comply with anti-discrimination laws, regardless of their moral stance. This reasoning parallels Nigeria’s constitutional structure, where freedom of religion is protected but cannot override the fundamental right to equality.

(Employer Prerogative & Employee Rights, Employer Prerogative & Employee Rights)

This evolving jurisprudence signals that Nigerian labour law is moving toward a standard where dignity and equality operate as the backbone of all employment relationships. Discrimination is no longer defined solely by statute but by broader constitutional values and international labour norms. As a result, religious discomfort, personal distaste, or moral disagreement such as a conservative employer objecting to an employee’s identity or lifestyle, cannot form lawful grounds for termination or differential treatment. The modern Nigerian workplace is expected to be a neutral space where professionalism outweighs personal prejudice, and where diversity is not merely tolerated but legally protected.

The principle becomes clearer when examining situations where an employer’s religious convictions conflict with an employee’s identity or conduct. Imagine a devout Muslim employer who objects strongly to pork, alcohol consumption, cross-dressing, or gender-transitioning because these acts conflict with their religious doctrines. If a transgender employee who occasionally eats pork at lunch joins the workplace, the employer may experience discomfort or even moral disapproval. But under Nigerian law, discomfort is not a lawful justification for adverse action. The employer cannot suspend, demote, or dismiss the worker simply because the employee’s lifestyle contradicts the employer’s faith. The Constitution protects the employer’s religious conscience, but it does not license discrimination.

This principle does not extinguish an employer’s right to religious expression. Rather, it places a boundary where such expression begins to infringe on another’s dignity or livelihood. An employer remains free to pray during breaks, observe religious holidays, or maintain personal dietary restrictions. However, they cannot compel employees to conform to those practices, nor penalise them for living differently. The modern Nigerian workplace is expected to operate as a neutral space where personal religious morality cannot function as an employment standard.

Ultimately, the promise of a fair workplace depends on a collective willingness to uphold dignity above dogma, equality above discomfort, and justice above prejudice. Only then can Nigerian labour relations reflect the true spirit of the Constitution, a society where freedom is balanced by fairness, and where no one is denied opportunity simply for being who they are.

Employer Prerogative & Employee Rights

CONTRIBUTORS

Lead Partner, EKO SOLICITORS & ADVOCATES

(Employer Prerogative & Employee Rights, Employer Prerogative & Employee Rights)