Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Ladele v London Borough of Islington
Employment Tribunal

Issues

(1) The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
(2) The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
(3) Conflict of laws

Facts

In November 2002, Ms Ladele became a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Islington. In 2007, she became an employee of the Council.

After the coming into force of the Civil Partnership Act, all the registrars were enabled to act as civil partnership registrars. Mrs Ladele was a Christian, and could not reconcile her religious beliefs with taking part in civil partnership ceremonies. She objected to her line manager, and was told that in refusing to carry out the ceremonies, she was discriminating against on the grounds of sexual orientation. She could be in breach of the Council's equality and diversity policy.

She continued to refuse to conduct civil partnership ceremonies on the grounds of her beliefs. Under the Regulations she had the right not to be treated less favourably and the right not to have working practices imposed upon her if she was disadvantaged on grounds of her belief unless objectively justified. As an interim measure, it was proposed that she would not be asked to participate in the ceremonies, but she was expected to perform all other duties relating to civil partnerships. Ms Ladele said she could not accept this. The situation led to two gay colleagues complaining that she was acting in breach of the Council's equality policy. The Council replied in some detail stating that disciplinary action would be taken against any employee acting in contravention of the policy, but that action could not be taken against Ms Ladele because of advice received from the General Registrar's Office. The situation continued to deteriorate and more complaints were made. Ms Ladele complained that she felt victimised and unsupported by her employer.

In May 2007, the Council commenced disciplinary proceedings resulting in the Council requiring Ms Ladele to undertake signings of the Register and other administrative work relating to civil partnerships, but not conduct the ceremonies themselves. They stated that if she did not agree to this her employment would be terminated.

She brought claims of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment on the grounds of religion or belief. She claimed that in a number of instances she had been discriminated against including:

(a) breach of confidentiality in relation to the Council's letter to Ms Ladele's colleagues with details of the action it would be taking;
(b) disclosure to the Council's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual Forum;
(c) subjecting her to a disciplinary process and threatening to terminate her contract;
(d) not investigating or addressing her concerns about the way her request had been treated; and
(e) failing to apply the Council's Dignity for All policy and Code of Conduct to the behaviour of her colleagues.

The Council argued that it was simply requiring her to do what was required of all its registrars. It argued that it had a legitimate aim in providing the civil partnership service and was committed to promoting equal opportunities and fighting discrimination. It was obliged to provide the service and was therefore justified in taking the view that it cannot permit its employees not to do so for discriminatory reasons.

Decision

The Tribunal found that Ms Ladele had suffered direct and indirect discrimination, and had been harassed as a consequence of her religious beliefs. It accepted that her beliefs were genuinely held in good faith. She compared herself if a hypothetical employee who was protected by the policy. It was held that the comparator would not have been treated the same way, so she had therefore been treated less favourably. The complaints of her gay colleagues were dealt with promptly, whereas her complaints were never responded to. She was disciplined because of her alleged discrimination and her views were not taken seriously. The colleagues were never questioned about whether their views were discriminatory against Ms Ladele.

Comments

This case shows that the conflict of two discrimination laws are very difficult for employers to balance. Since 2003, employees have been protected from discrimination on grounds of their religion or belief (or lack of) and sexual orientation. The Tribunal clearly stated in its judgment that one set of rights were not more important that another. The Council fell down because it gave little thought to the rights of Ms Ladele, concentrating on the rights of one group to the detriment of another.


Rachel Billen - Associate Solicitor, Commercial Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

This Employment Law Update does not constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be relied on as such. You should take specific advice regarding your circumstances before taking any action based on the information contained within this Update.