Ladele v London Borough of Islington

An employer does not directly discriminate on grounds of religion by applying the same requirement to every employee. The relevant inquiry is whether the treatment occurred because of the employee’s belief, rather than because of conduct manifesting that belief.

A public authority may proportionately require all designated civil partnership registrars to provide the full service. Its legitimate aim may include delivering services without discrimination and promoting equal opportunities among staff and service users. Freedom to manifest religion does not confer an automatic exemption from a lawful, secular public duty protecting the rights of others.

Once a registrar has been designated to register civil partnerships, refusal to perform them while remaining willing to conduct marriages constitutes unlawful sexual-orientation discrimination under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

A local authority designated all its registrars as civil partnership registrars and required them to undertake civil partnership duties. One registrar refused because she believed that participation would conflict with her Christian understanding of marriage. The authority commenced disciplinary proceedings and stated that continued refusal could lead to termination of her employment.

The Employment Tribunal upheld claims of direct and indirect religious discrimination and harassment under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in appeal UKEAT/0453/08/RN, set those findings aside.

The registrar appealed, seeking restoration of the indirect discrimination and harassment findings and remission of some direct discrimination allegations. The central questions were whether the authority acted because of her religion, whether its uniform requirement was proportionate, and whether the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 required a designated registrar to provide civil partnership services.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The Employment Appeal Tribunal correctly set aside every finding of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment. The Master of the Rolls delivered the judgment, with which Dyson and Smith LJJ agreed.

2. Direct discrimination depended on why the relevant treatment occurred. Applying the same duties to every registrar was not less favourable treatment because of religion. The evidence showed that the authority acted because of the registrar’s refusal to perform civil partnership duties, rather than because of her underlying belief. A comparator was a registrar who refused the same work because of non-religious antipathy to same-sex relationships. There was no evidential basis for remission, even though aspects of the authority’s conduct were improper or unfair.

3. The harassment findings also failed. The tribunal had not asked whether the alleged conduct was on grounds of religion or belief as required by regulation 5 of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Properly directed, it could not have found statutory harassment.

4. The uniform requirement placed persons sharing the registrar’s belief at a particular disadvantage. It was nevertheless a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim under regulation 3(1). The aim was not merely administrative efficiency. It was to provide a non-discriminatory service and implement an overarching equal-opportunities policy for employees and the public. Requiring every registrar to provide the full service was justified because the work was secular, public-facing and intended to ensure equal treatment irrespective of sexual orientation.

5. Article 9 of the Convention did not require an exemption. Freedom to manifest religion is qualified by the rights and freedoms of others. It does not guarantee a right to manifest belief at every time and place or to refuse secular professional duties.

6. Once designated as a civil partnership registrar, the appellant’s refusal to conduct civil partnerships while remaining willing to conduct marriages amounted to unlawful sexual-orientation discrimination under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. The authority was therefore obliged to require her to perform those duties. The limited religious exceptions did not extend to a secular public registration service. The court added that a decision not to designate a religious objector might well be lawful, but that possibility did not affect the appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal was upheld: [2009] EWCA Civ 1357.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: On appeal UKEAT/0453/08/RN, the tribunal allowed the local authority’s appeal and set aside all findings of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment.
3. Employment Tribunal: By a decision dated 3 July 2008, the tribunal found direct and indirect religious discrimination and harassment contrary to the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.