Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Ladele v London Borough of Islington
Employment Appeal Tribunal – 19 December 2008

Issues

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

Facts

This is a case which was reported in these updates on 26 September 2008.

Ms Ladele was employed as a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. After the coming into force of the Civil Partnership Act, all registrars were enabled to act as civil partnership registrars. Mrs Ladele was a Christian.

She refused 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 such action could be 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 situation continued to deteriorate and more complaints were made against her. Ms Ladele complained that she felt victimised and unsupported by her employer.

In May 2007, the Council commenced disciplinary proceedings. The Council required 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.

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.

The Employment Tribunal found that Ms Ladele had suffered direct and indirect discrimination and had been harassed as a consequence of her religious beliefs.

The matter was then referred to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Decision

The EAT found that, based on the evidence it heard, there was no proper basis for making a finding of discrimination. When it considered the allegations, it concluded that her complaint was in reality a complaint about a failure to recognise her difference rather than a complaint that she had been treated less favourably because of that difference.

The EAT made a distinction between an employee who was dismissed for burning down his employee’s factory because of his philosophical beliefs. The reason for that dismissal was arson and not the philosophical beliefs of the particular employee. In this case, the Tribunal had failed to consider what explanation the employer had given for the less favourable treatment. There was no evidence to establish that Ms Ladele was dismissed for her religious beliefs. It was actually because she refused to carry out her duties. It also acknowledged that the Council was entitled to take a stance to ensure it was not seen as conniving and colluding in unacceptable practices.

Comments

The judgment highlighted the practical problems which arise for employers when trying to reconcile conflict in such a sensitive area. The EAT here acknowledged that the Council was entitled to take the stance that it did to ensure it was not seen as colluding in unacceptable practices. The question to ask in the future will be where such a line will be drawn between an employer in a similar situation taking a legitimate stance or actually aiding and abetting an act of discrimination.


Rachel Billen – Associate Solicitor, Employment 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.