The employer's obligation not to discriminate trumps an employee's personal religious views

Published: 16th December 2009

In a landmark decision the Court of Appeal has not only confirmed that employers can require employees not to discriminate against same gender couples irrespective of the employee's personal religious views, but have stated that they must do so where the employee is involved in the provision of a service to the public.The Judgment in Ladele v the London Borough of Islington reinforces previous decisions on this contentious area, but also goes much further by stating what employers must do where the employee is objecting to providing goods facilities or services to a section of the public.

The case involves a Registrar who refused to perform civil partnership ceremonies on the basis that she said this conflicted with her own religious beliefs. She was ultimately subjected to disciplinary proceedings for her refusal to do so. The Court of Appeal has upheld the earlier decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that the Council were able to impose their equal opportunities policy on the Registrar.

The Court states this was not direct religious discrimination, because the reason that disciplinary action was threatened was Ms Ladele's refusal to undertake civil partnerships, not her own religious views. Whilst the policy did potentially indirectly discriminate against those sharing her religious views, its imposition by the Council was not unlawful because it was justified in doing so. The Court of Appeal has reinforced this justification argument in very strong terms. They emphasise that the Council's aim to provide their services on a non-discriminatory basis consistent with their Dignity for All policy, would always be a legitimate aim. As a result a requirement that employees could not opt out at all was proportionate (and almost always will be). In these points the Court reinforces the earlier EAT decision and the recent similar case of McFarlane (where a relationship counsellor refused to provide counselling on intimate matters to same gender couples and was dismissed).

Where this ruling covers new ground, is in considering the Council's obligations under the law outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods facilities or services to the public (over and above their obligations as an employer). The Court ruled that it was in fact unlawful for Ms Ladele to refuse to perform civil partnership ceremonies under these rules.This means that not only were the Council right to take disciplinary action against her for refusing to do this, but were legally required to do so.This is important because it means the Council were right not to have endeavoured to practically accommodate Ms Ladele's religious beliefs by, for example, rearranging workloads so that she did not need to undertake civil partnerships. Not only was taking a hard line an option open to them, it was something they had to do.

For those of you with staff involved in the provision of goods and services to the public (including any public sector organisation), this decision narrows your options in addressing employees who refuse to provide certain services on unlawful grounds, even if their objection is based upon religious views. Trying to be conciliatory and accommodate the employee's objections is potentially unlawful.There are certain very limited exceptions to the goods and services laws which apply to the operation of "organisations relating to religion or belief", but for everyone else you must require that the employee provides services to all without discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation or civil partnership (or indeed any of the other unlawful grounds where the goods and services rules apply such as gender and race).

If this raises any issues for your organisation please speak to your usual contact in the Mace & Jones Employment and HR team in Liverpool: 0151 236 8989 or Manchester: 0161 214 0500.