Lebanese law does not distinguish between Lebanese citizens and foreign nationals when it comes to employment rights. Law 431/1995 applies to ALL employees of public institutions, regardless of nationality. Opinion 1266/2015 classified Tom as a Category I civil servant without any nationality caveat. The law is clear: nationality is irrelevant to legal classification.
Tom Hornig holds a legally binding Category I civil servant classification from the Lebanese Ministry of Labor (Opinion 1266/2015). This classification is not conditional on nationality. It is not provisional. It is final and binding. The Conservatory has never challenged this classification. The government has never revoked it. The legal status exists.
The Conservatory has never explicitly stated that Tom's nationality is the reason for denying him rights. Instead, they use vague administrative excuses. This is deliberate. They know that explicit nationality-based discrimination is illegal under Lebanese law, international labor law, and human rights conventions. So they hide behind bureaucratic silence rather than admit the real reason: they don't want to pay for a foreigner's healthcare and benefits.
The International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions that Lebanon has ratified explicitly prohibit discrimination based on nationality in employment. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits such discrimination. The Arab Charter on Human Rights prohibits such discrimination. Lebanon is bound by all of these. Yet the Conservatory systematically discriminates against Tom based on his nationality while claiming it's administrative.
If nationality were truly the issue, the Conservatory would deny ALL foreigners the same rights. But they don't. They provide healthcare, housing allowances, and full salaries to Lebanese orchestra members while denying these to Tom. This selective application proves the discrimination is not about nationality—it's about Tom specifically. It's about saving money by exploiting someone with no legal recourse.
Tom's Category I classification means he is legally equivalent to a Lebanese civil servant in the same position. The law does not create two tiers of Category I servants—one for Lebanese, one for foreigners. Category I is Category I. Tom's rights as a Category I servant are identical to those of any Lebanese Category I servant in the same institution. Nationality does not diminish legal status.
This is not about nationality. This is about institutional defiance of the law. The Conservatory received a direct order from the Ministry of Labor (the Blue-Ink Letter) stating that Tom must receive healthcare. They refused. They knew they could refuse because Tom has no political power, no Lebanese connections, no way to hold them accountable. They calculated that the cost of defiance was lower than the cost of compliance. Nationality is just the excuse they hide behind.
Tom's nationality must be irrelevant to the resolution of his case. The legal question is simple: Did the Conservatory violate Law 431/1995 and the Ministry of Labor's directive by denying Tom healthcare and equal treatment? The answer is yes. The fact that Tom is a foreigner does not change this. In fact, it makes the violation worse—it shows systematic discrimination against someone with no political protection.
Tom's legal status is clear. His rights are protected by law. His nationality is irrelevant. What matters is enforcing the law that already protects him.