Grace v Places For Children

There is no clear dividing line between holding a religious belief and manifesting it. Unjustified unfavourable treatment because an employee manifests religion may constitute unlawful discrimination, ordinarily indirect discrimination.

For direct discrimination, however, the tribunal must identify the actual reason for the treatment. A dismissal does not amount to direct religious discrimination where the sustainable factual finding is that it was caused by an employee's inappropriate conduct in sharing religious views, which upset colleagues, rather than by the employee's religion itself.

The claimant, a nursery manager, was summarily dismissed after an unauthorised staff training session and discussions with staff which the employer considered frightening and inappropriate. She alleged direct discrimination because of religion or belief, relying on the dismissal and three alleged restrictions or criticisms concerning Bible sessions and workplace discussions about God.

The Employment Tribunal rejected the complaints. It found that the employer had acted because of the manner in which the claimant shared or manifested her beliefs, not because of her religion. The claimant appealed, contending that the Tribunal had erred by relying on Chondol v Liverpool CC [2009] UKEAT 0298/08/1102 and by drawing an impermissible distinction between religion and its manifestation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal made a sustainable factual finding that the claimant was dismissed because she manifested or shared her religion in an inappropriate manner which upset staff, rather than because of her religion. That finding disclosed no impermissible reason for the treatment and no direct discrimination.
2. The Tribunal's reference to the distinction in Chondol could not properly be understood as establishing a general and decisive division between holding a belief and manifesting it. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects religious freedom and the qualified right to manifest religion. The Code of Practice on Employment 2011 also stated that there is not always a clear line between the two.
3. An unjustified disadvantage imposed because an employee manifests religion may therefore be unlawful discrimination, usually indirect discrimination. An Employment Tribunal must take the relevant provisions of the Code into account under section 15(4) of the Equality Act 2010.
4. On its proper reading, the Tribunal had not treated manifestation as outside discrimination law. Its shorthand conclusion reflected earlier findings about conduct which blurred work and non-work boundaries and adversely affected colleagues' well-being. The absence of a clear legal dividing line did not undermine those findings.
5. The facts differed from those in Chondol, but that did not make the Tribunal's reference to it erroneous. In cases of this kind the required exercise is careful examination of the particular facts and sustainable findings as to the reason for the treatment.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal — dismissed the claimant's appeal and upheld the dismissal of her religion or belief discrimination claims.
• Employment Tribunal — in reasons sent on 29 November 2012, dismissed the claims, finding that the treatment was because of the manner in which the claimant shared her religion rather than because of religion itself.