Being civil

Ladele v London Borough of Islington and anor

Under the Employment and Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, employers cannot discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief. In Ladele v London Borough of Islington and anor, the Court of Appeal said, however, that a registrar was not discriminated against because of her religious beliefs when she was threatened with dismissal for refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies.

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 ceremonies.

Following a number of complaints about her refusal to carry out civil partnership ceremonies contrary to the Council’s Dignity for All policy, the Council started disciplinary proceedings against her in August 2007. In September, it warned her that she could be dismissed if she continued to refuse to perform her civil partnership duties.

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

Tribunal and EAT decisions

The tribunal agreed with Ms Ladele that the Council had directly and indirectly discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs.

The EAT, however, allowed the Council’s appeal saying that it had treated her in the same way as all its other employees, and could not therefore have directly discriminated against her.

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.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that Ms Ladele was not discriminated against or harassed, contrary to the 2003 regulations when she was designated a civil partnership registrar and required to officiate at civil partnerships.

Instead it said that: “The notion that Islington, or any officers or employees responsible for the acts of alleged discrimination, were motivated by Ms Ladele's religious beliefs, rather than by her refusal to officiate at civil partnerships is inconsistent with the fact that Islington's concerns would undoubtedly have been put to rest if Ms Ladele had agreed to perform all her assigned civil partnership duties”.

The Court then went on to consider the effect of the 2007 sexual orientation regulations (introduced to outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services and the exercise of public functions) and whether this “overrode” the right to freedom of religion.

It concluded that “however much sympathy one may have with someone such as Ms Ladele, who is faced with choosing between giving up a post she plainly appreciates or officiating at events which she considers to be contrary to her religious beliefs, the legislature has decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy, such as the United Kingdom, include outlawing discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on grounds of sexual orientation, subject only to very limited exceptions."