Naeem v The Secretary of State for Justice: EAT 15 Jan 2014

EAT Race Discrimination : Indirect – RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
Until 2002 the only Chaplains employed by the Prison Service were Christians. Since then, Chaplains of other faiths have been recruited. The pay scale for Chaplains reflects – inter alia – length of service.
The Claimant, a Muslim Chaplain, was appointed in 2004.
His claim of indirect discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion or belief was rejected. The Tribunal were satisfied that, although he had been subject to a PCP which had put him at a particular disadvantage, the employer had established that the PCP was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim: Equality Act 2010 section 19
The Claimant appealed on ‘justification’.
The employer cross-appealed on whether the Tribunal had been wrong to include – as members of the ‘pool’ of comparators – pre-2002 Chaplains.
Cross-appeal allowed: the Tribunal had erred in including pre-2002 Chaplains. Their circumstances were materially different to those of subsequent chaplains: Equality Act 2010 section 23. The Claimant had been treated in exactly the same way as any chaplain, of whatever race or religion, appointed at the same time as him.
Appeal dismissed: although the Tribunal had erred in determining that the employers had established ‘proportionate means’ (because it had failed to consider obvious alternatives), the appeal failed in light of the success of the cross-appeal and the Claimant’s claims stood dismissed.

Judges:

Luba QC

Citations:

[2013] UKEAT 0215 – 13 – 1501, [2014] Eq LR 206, [2014] ICR 472, [2014] IRLR 520

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equality Act 2010 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromNaeem v The Secretary of State for Justice CA 9-Dec-2015
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for discrimination when under the 1952 Act, there was a requirement to appoint a member as pastor of the prison a Clergyman of the Church of England, and other chaplains, including himself, an . .
At EATEssop and Others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) SC 5-Apr-2017
The appellants alleged indirect race and belief discrimination in the conditions of their employment by the respondent. Essop came as lead claimant challenging the tests used for promotion. Statistics showed lower pass rates for BME candidates, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.520020