Former government minister Lawrence Scott has had a claim of unfair dismissal rejected by the Human Rights Tribunal.

Mr Scott filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission in 2016 after he was sacked by the airline JetBlue.

Mr Scott, who was an Opposition MP at the time, claimed he was dismissed because of his political views.

However, JetBlue countered, insisting his sacking was based on his “non-compliance with JetBlue policies” and his claims to the contrary were an attempt to “mislead the community”.

In a statement released yesterday, the tribunal said it had dismissed Mr Scott’s claims.

It said: “The complainant alleged that they were terminated because of their political opinions while the respondent denied this allegation.

“The panel found that the political opinion identified by the complainant was capable of protection as a protected characteristic under the Act.

“However, the panel found that the decision to terminate the complainant’s employment was not based on his holding a political opinion and was therefore not discriminatory.

“The panel found in favour of the respondent and dismissed this matter.”

The tribunal announced further rulings on two other cases.

In the matter of Valachi Pearman versus the Commissioner of Corrections, the tribunal ruled in March that Mr Pearman, a former corrections officer, had been “indirectly discriminated against” on the grounds of disability.

Mr Pearman alleged that the department refused to employ him because he had a disability.

He also asserted that the department, which denied discriminating against him, failed in the duty owed to accommodate him.

The tribunal awarded damages in the sum of $47,400 for loss of wages, and an award for injury to feelings in the amount of $7,164.73.

The tribunal also awarded damages in the matter of James Conyers versus the Minister of Education and the Government of Bermuda, in a decision provided in August.

Mr Conyers was said to be a Bermudian man with 25 years’ experience in education.

He alleged that the decision to not employ him in a full-time teaching role was because he was a Bermudian male, and that the decision to not include them on the list of substitute teachers had been made in breach of the Act.

The respondents denied the allegations.

The tribunal found that Mr Conyers was unable to show “on the balance of probabilities” that he had been unsuccessful because of his sex and national origin.

The tribunal found that the decision to not allow Mr Conyers to work as a substitute teacher, because of the ongoing investigation by the Human Rights Commission, “amounted to a retaliatory act in breach of section 8(a) of the Human Rights Act 1981”.

The tribunal awarded damages in the sum of $61,313.58 for loss of wages, and an award for injury to feelings in the amount of $7,198.02.

UPDATE: Several references to the Human Rights Tribunal mistakenly called it the Human Rights Commission. We apologise for the error.

• On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on what we consider to be a controversial or contentious story. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers