EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION RACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect Discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.Employee required to join a fridge-cleaning rota as a condition of using the communal staff kitchen. Complaint that the requirement infringed his religious belief that he cannot touch meat or meat products. At pre-hearing review the Employment Tribunal found that … Continue reading Chatwal v Wandsworth Borough Council: EAT 13 May 2011
EAT Religion or belief – whether claim fell within Part II (Employment and Vocational Training). The Tribunal concluded that the claim did not fall within Part II of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. It did not err in law in reaching this conclusion. The claimant did not establish that his claim fell … Continue reading Padgett v Serota and Another: EAT 17 Dec 2007
The claimants sought a declaration that part of the Regulations were invalid, and an infringement of their human rights. The Regulations sought to exempt church schools from an obligation not to discriminate against homosexual teachers. Held: The Regulation was within the scope of the Directive. Though a member state had some freedom in implementing a … Continue reading Regina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Admn 26 Apr 2004
The claimants had acted as foster carers for several years, but challenged a potential decision to discontinue that when, as committed Christians, they refused to sign to agree to treat without differentiation any child brought to them who might be homosexual. A declaration was sought as to the legality of the proposed decision. Held: A … Continue reading Johns and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Derby City Council and Another: Admn 28 Feb 2011
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality of the evidence on any material … Continue reading Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another: CA 22 Mar 2001
cvs_borghEAT072013 EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION AGE DISCRIMINATION The authorities on the alternative definition of ’employee’ in Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 as a person employed ‘under a contract personally to do any work’ establish that there is a dichotomy between independent providers of services who are … Continue reading CVS Solicitors Llp and Another v Van Der Borgh (Religion or Belief Discrimination): EAT 26 Jul 2013
The claimants sought a declaration that the restriction on the infliction of corporal punishment in schools infringed their human right of freedom of religion. The schools concerned were Christian schools who believed that moderate corporal discipline was required in order to give expression to their religious beliefs. The respondent argued that the beliefs asserted, whilst … Continue reading Regina (Williamson and Others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment: CA 12 Dec 2002
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. Held: The appeal was dismissed. For Article 9 to be engaged (aside from certain other threshold conditions) the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others: HL 24 Feb 2005
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations. The belief must be of a similar cogency or status to a religious belief, the ECHR jurisprudence is … Continue reading Grainger Plc and Others v Nicholson: EAT 3 Nov 2009
The appellant had succeeded in his claim for sex discrimination arising from his orientation, but the EAT had reversed the decision. He now appealed against the EAT decision. Although he had revealed his sexuality in one post, he had chosen to delay this when moved to a different office, but it had nevertheless been revealed. … Continue reading Grant v HM Land Registry: CA 1 Jul 2011
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATIONVicarious liability Post employmentThe Appellants were members of the board of a Centre. As a result of decisions of the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, it was held that the Appellants had unfairly dismissed the Respondents, who were employees of the Centre and that they had unfairly discriminated against them on … Continue reading Bungay and Others v Saini and Others: EAT 27 Sep 2011
Statement of Facts and Questions to parties . .
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION There is no breach of ECHR Art 6 when a corporate employer accused of discrimination fails to produce the decision maker at trial to face cross-examination. Art 6.3(d) applies to criminal proceedings. It was reasonably arguable from the construction of the dismissal letter that the Claimant’s belief in spirituality, correctly … Continue reading Power v Greater Manchester Police Authority: EAT 29 Apr 2010
EAT An atheist teacher working in a Roman Catholic school applied for the post of Acting Principal Teacher of Pastoral Care. He was not even considered for an interview as he was not of the Roman Catholic faith and the local education authority which maintained the school thought that the Roman Catholic Church would have … Continue reading Glasgow City Council v McNab: EAT 17 Jan 2007
EAT Religion or Belief Discrimination – The Appellant, a sub-editor, who was a Roman Catholic, was offended by an editor referring to ‘the fucking Pope’ when chasing a delayed article and brought a claim for harassment on the grounds of religious belief. The Tribunal held that the use of bad language was evidently merely an … Continue reading Heafield v Times Newspaper Ltd: EAT 17 Jan 2013
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATIONWhether belief in spiritualism and the philosophical belief in life after death and psychic powers falls within the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations. The ET finding that it did. Upheld on appeal. Citations: [2009] UKEAT 0434 – 09 – 1211 Links: Bailii Employment Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431884
The court was asked whether parties to an arbitration agreement in a commercial contract can stipulate that the tribunal is to be drawn from members of a particular religious group, in this case the Ismaili community. Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. The Directive was concerned with discrimination in several fields many of which were already … Continue reading Jivraj v Hashwani (Rev 2): CA 22 Jun 2010
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATIONUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissalChristian counsellor dismissed by Relate for failing to give an unequivocal commitment to counsel same-sex couples.Held: Tribunal right to dismiss claims of discrimination (direct and indirect) contrary to the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and of unfair dismissal – London Borough of Islington v … Continue reading McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd: EAT 30 Nov 2009
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION The claimant was a Registrar who, amongst other things, registered marriages. When the Civil Partnerships Act came into force, she refused to participate in registering such partnerships because to do so was inconsistent with her religious beliefs. The council insisted that she should undertake at least some of these duties, … Continue reading London Borough of Islington v Ladele: EAT 19 Dec 2008
The claimant had resigned as a magistrate after a refusal of his requirement that he not be asked to sit on adoption applications involving same sex couples. Held: The request was an abdication of the duties of a magistrate, and his claim failed. EAT Religion or beliefThe appellant was a Justice of the Peace. He … Continue reading McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs: EAT 31 Oct 2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Part time pensions Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke The EAT exercised its discretion to allow a point conceded at the Employment Tribunal to be reopened on appeal. The exceptional circumstances included the fact that the issue went to jurisdiction, these were four test cases representing 120 similar concessions in … Continue reading Secretary of State for Health v Rance: EAT 4 May 2007
The defendant claimed that he had gone absent without leave from the RAF as a conscientous objector. Held: The defendant had not demonstrated by complaint to the RAF that he did object to service in Iraq. In some circumstances where there was no procedure to make his objection known, the failure to do so might … Continue reading Khan v Royal Air Force Summary Appeal Court: Admn 7 Oct 2004
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without undertakings from the journalists not to publish any element of the interview. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDUREDisclosureHUMAN RIGHTS(1) The procedure sanctioned by rule 54 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, and by the Employment Tribunals (National Security) Rules of Procedure, is not incompatible with a claimant’s right under Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to a fair hearing of his claim for discrimination, or … Continue reading Tariq v The Home Office: EAT 16 Oct 2009
The claimant said that the requirement in an arbitration clause for all the arbitrators to be members of the Ismaili community was unlawful under the 2003 Regulations. Held: The appointment was not discriminatory. An arbitrator’s employment was not within the Regulations, and was not a worker under the case law. He was instead an independent … Continue reading Jivraj v Hashwani: ComC 26 Jun 2009
The appellant was employed as a registrar. She refused to preside at same sex partnership ceremonies, saying that they conflicted with her Christian beliefs. Held: The council’s decision had clearly disadvantaged the claimant, and the question was whether its policies were a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. They were. The overarching policy was … Continue reading Ladele v London Borough of Islington: CA 15 Dec 2009
The court was asked whether, by adopting a staff dress code which forbade the wearing of visible neck adornment and so prevented the appellant, a Christian, from wearing with her uniform a small, visible cross, British Airways (BA) indirectly discriminated against her on grounds of religion or belief. Held: There was no requirement that a … Continue reading Eweida v British Airways Plc: CA 12 Feb 2010
Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted. Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant had to establish facts allowing the tribunal to conclude, in the … Continue reading Igen Ltd v Wong: CA 18 Feb 2005
The parties had a joint venture agreement which provided that any dispute was to be referred to an arbitrator from the Ismaili community. The claimant said that this method of appointment became void as a discriminatory provision under the 2003 Regulations. The High Court found the appointment to be outwith the provisions, but this was … Continue reading Jivraj v Hashwani: SC 27 Jul 2011
The claimant alleged discrimination. As a teaching assistant, she had been refused permission to wear a veil when assisting a male teacher. Held: Direct discrimination had not been shown. The respondent had shown that any comparator would have also been required to remove a veil since it obscured her face and mouth and was a … Continue reading Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council: EAT 30 Mar 2007
EAT AGE DISCRIMINATIONUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deductionCouncil employee seconded to registered social landlord – Secondment comes to an end, so that he is formally redundant – Employee aged 49 and would be entitled to an early retirement pension if retained in employment to age 50 – Council fails to find him alternative employment or to … Continue reading London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster: EAT 10 Sep 2009
The employee renewed his application for leave to appeal against refusal of his discrimination claim on the grounds of religious belief. He worked as a relationship sex therapist, and had signed up to the employer’s equal opportunities policy, but felt that his Christian beliefs required him not to work to assist same sex couples where … Continue reading McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd: CA 29 Apr 2010
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
