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 expression of bad temper and not intended to express hostility to the Pope or Catholicism and that it did not constitute harassment within the meaning of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
Held: The Tribunal’s decision was unarguably correct – Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal and Land Registry v Grant applied.
Judges:
Underhill J
Citations:
[2013] UKEAT 1305 – 12 – 1701
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal EAT 12-Feb-2009
EAT HARASSMENT: Purpose
Tribunal was entitled to find that a remark made by an employer to a female employee of Indian ethnic origin referring to the possibility of her being ‘married off in India’ had the . .
Cited – Grant v HM Land Registry CA 1-Jul-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470904