Civil rights

London Borough of Islington and Ladele

Under the Employment and Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, employers cannot discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) said in London Borough of Islington and Ladele that an employer was entitled to require a committed Christian to carry out civil partnership duties, even though it was against her religious views.

Basic facts

Ms Ladele was a committed Christian who worked as a registrar of births, deaths and marriages. When the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (which allows same sex couples to legally enter into civil partnerships) came into effect, she told her manager that her beliefs prevented her from conducting any civil partnership ceremonies.

She was not then consulted as to whether she would be designated as a civil partnership registrar, but was offered the chance to restrict her duties to the signing process, which she turned down.

After that, she changed her roster to avoid having to carry out any civil partnership ceremonies, but two gay members of staff wrote to Ms Ladele’s manager saying that her continued refusal was an act of homophobia and contrary to the Council’s Dignity for All policy.

Following further complaints, the Council initiated disciplinary proceedings in August 2007. It reiterated its compromise offer to her but she rejected it again. At the end of a disciplinary hearing she was warned that she could be dismissed.

Ms Ladele brought claims of direct and indirect discrimination and harassment under the 2003 regulations.

Tribunal decision

And the tribunal agreed with her on just about every count. It said that the Council had directly discriminated against her in a number of ways. For instance, by designating her a civil partnership registrar without consulting her, by disciplining her, by finding her guilty of gross misconduct and threatening her with dismissal, among other things.

It decided that the Council had also imposed a provision, criterion or practice of requiring all registrars to carry out civil partnership duties, putting Ms Ladele at a disadvantage. Although it had been legitimate for the Council not to discriminate against the gay community, its approach had been disproportionate in that it had protected their rights at the expense of Ms Ladele’s objections.

EAT decision

But the EAT disagreed. It said that the tribunal’s finding of direct discrimination was “unsustainable” for the simple reason that her complaint was not that she was treated differently from others, but rather that she wanted to be treated differently. It made clear that there cannot be direct discrimination when an employer is treating all their employees in exactly the same way.

And although it accepted that management had been more sympathetic to the two gay employees than Ms Ladele, that was not a breach of the law.

The tribunal had also fallen into the trap of confusing the Council's reasons for treating Ms Ladele as it did with her reasons for acting as she did. This confusion would allow claimants to argue that their conduct stemmed from their religious beliefs (however bizarre) and then claim discrimination on that basis. As a result, employers would never be able to refuse any demands about letting them manifest their religious beliefs.

Take the example of someone who burns down their employer’s factory because of their philosophical anarchist beliefs and is then sacked. They would not be able to claim discrimination because the reason for their dismissal was arson, not their actual beliefs.

As for her claim of indirect discrimination, the EAT agreed that the Council’s requirement for all registrars to perform civil partnership duties had the effect of placing people with Ms Ladele’s views at a particular disadvantage to others who did not share them. But it said that the aim of fighting discrimination was legitimate and that it was entirely rational (and proportionate) for the Council to require staff to act in a non-discriminatory way.

It was therefore entitled to refuse to allow registrars to pick and choose whether or not to carry out their obligations, depending on their religious views and the Council’s appeal should therefore succeed. It was not taking disciplinary action against Ms Ladele for holding her religious beliefs, but because she was refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies and this involved discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.