|
Christian registrar loses religious discrimination claim
In the long-running controversial case of Ladele v London Borough of Islington, the Court of Appeal has now confirmed that a Christian registrar disciplined for refusing to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies was not unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of her religion. This decision provides valuable guidance for employers in both the public and private sectors, clarifying that whilst employees are free to hold a religion or belief, employers are also entitled to consider their wider legal obligations.
Ms Ladele was a registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at the London Borough of Islington. When civil partnerships between same sex partners were introduced, Ms Ladele informed her manager that she would not want to officiate at civil partnerships as she could not reconcile her faith with taking an active part in enabling same sex unions to be formed. The council offered Ms Ladele a temporary measure of only having to officiate at civil partnerships which involved no ceremonies. Ms Ladele did not accept the offer and wrote to the council setting out her views.
Ms Ladele continued to carry out her functions as before, making informal arrangements with colleagues so she avoided officiating at civil partnerships. Two gay registrars complained that they felt victimised by Ms Ladele not carrying out civil partnership duties and that she was breaching the council's Dignity for All policy. The council subsequently took disciplinary action against Ms Ladele for her refusal and found her guilty of gross misconduct. Ms Ladele issued proceedings under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations), claiming that she suffered direct and indirect discrimination and harassment on the grounds of her religious belief. Her claim was upheld by the Employment Tribunal. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the council's appeal and dismissed Ms Ladele's claim. The EAT considered that the council acted the way it did not because of Ms Ladele's religious views, but because of her refusal to conduct civil partnership duties.
The Court of Appeal upheld the EAT's ruling, agreeing that Ms Ladele was neither directly nor indirectly discriminated against, nor harassed, by being required to officiate at civil partnerships or by any other aspect of her treatment by the council. In relation to the direct discrimination allegations, it noted that there was no evidence on which an Employment Tribunal could conclude that Ms Ladele's religious belief was the reason for the council's actions.
In relation to indirect discrimination, it was agreed that the council's policy to designate all their registrars as civil partnership registrars and require them all to perform civil partnerships would put a person such as Ms Ladele at a disadvantage. However, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the council's actions were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It said that the council's legitimate aim was to provide effective civil partnership arrangements and comply with their overarching policy of being an employer and a public authority wholly committed to the promotion of equal opportunities and to requiring all its employees to act in a non-discriminatory way. The aim of the council's Dignity for All policy was of overarching policy significance to the council and had fundamental human rights, equality and diversity implications, whereas the effect on Ms Ladele of implementing the policy did not impinge on her religious beliefs: she was still free to hold those beliefs and free to worship as she wished.
The Court of Appeal also noted that once it was decided that the Regulations did not entitle Ms Ladele to insist on her right not to have civil partnership duties assigned to her, the council was obliged to require Ms Ladele to perform civil partnership duties by virtue of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 (which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services). The council had no alternative but to insist on her performing such duties.
It also noted that, "however much sympathy one may have with someone such as Ms Ladele, who is faced with choosing between giving up a post she plainly appreciates or officiating at events which she considers to be contrary to her religious beliefs, the legislature has decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy such as the United Kingdom, include outlawing discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on grounds of sexual orientation, subject only to very limited exceptions".
|