A recent discrimination case (Ladele v London Borough of Islington) illustrates the potential for conflict that can exist between discrimination laws aimed at protecting different minority groups.
Lillian Ladele worked as a registrar for Islington Borough Council. She is a committed Christian and considers unions under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to be contrary to God’s laws. She therefore refused to carry out civil partnership ceremonies as to do so would be inconsistent with her religious beliefs. The Council’s position was that affording staff the opportunity not to undertake civil partnership ceremonies was contrary to its ‘Dignity for All’ policy, which sought to target discrimination and promote equality for all groups. It expressly provided that, ‘All employees are expected to promote these values at all times and to work within the policy’. However, as a compromise, the Council suggested that Miss Ladele should undertake only some of the civil partnership duties. She refused, however, and the Council subsequently disciplined her and threatened her with dismissal.
Miss Ladele claimed that she had been discriminated against because of her religious beliefs and brought claims of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment. The Council argued that it had applied the same rule to all registrars, namely that they should carry out both civil partnership and marriage ceremonies. Anyone refusing to carry out their duties would have been treated in exactly the same way, irrespective of their beliefs.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) upheld Miss Ladele’s claims. She hailed the decision as a ‘victory for religious liberty’. However, gay rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, called the ruling a ‘violation of human rights’.
Islington Council appealed against the ET’s decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the appeal. In its view the claim of direct discrimination was unsustainable. Miss Ladele’s complaint was not that she had been treated differently from the other employees; rather it was that she was not treated differently when she ought to have been. It cannot constitute direct discrimination to treat all employees in precisely the same way. The ostensible reason for the Council’s conduct stemmed from its refusal to accept that she should be able to refuse to do the relevant duties. Miss Ladele’s conduct rather than her beliefs was the reason for the treatment. Just because an employee’s beliefs are the reason for his or her action does not mean that they are the reason for the employer’s response.
As regards the claim of indirect discrimination, whilst the Council’s policy did place Miss Ladele at a particular disadvantage compared with employees who did not share her beliefs on same-sex relationships, the EAT found that the Council was entitled to adopt the position it did. Its action was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the aim being to provide the service on a non-discriminatory basis, and it was entitled to require all registrars to perform the full range of services. In the EAT’s view, ‘It would necessarily undermine the Council’s clear commitment to that objective if it were to connive in allowing the claimant to manifest her belief by refusing to do the civil partnership duties’.
Although the EAT was critical of some aspects of the Council’s handling of the matter, it ruled that there had been no unlawful discrimination in this case. Miss Ladele is seeking permission to appeal against the decision.
Have you been discriminated against at work because of your religious beliefs? If so please contact our employment law solicitors on 0208 464 4242 or 0207 242 7265 or email your enquiry to employmentlaw@wellerslawgroup.com
