Ladele v London Borough of Islington

29 December 2008

The case of Ladele v London Borough of Islington received a reasonable amount of press coverage when it was heard in the Employment Tribunal earlier this year. The matter was appealed by Islington after Miss Ladele won in the Employment Tribunal. Last week the Employment Appeal Tribunal gave its decision.

By way of background, Miss Ladele was a Registrar who, amongst other things, registered marriages. She refused to participate in registering civil partnerships because it was inconsistent with her religious beliefs. The Council disciplined her and, when she still refused, threatened dismissal in accordance with its policies.

Miss Ladele phrased her claim in three parts. The Employment Tribunal agreed with her on all but, on appeal, the EAT said that all her claims failed.

First, Miss Ladele claimed that she had been treated less favourably than other employees by reason of her religious beliefs. Although, on the face of it, this might seem to have been the case, the EAT said that the complaint is “…not that she was treated differently from others; rather it was that she was not treated differently when she ought to have been.” Essentially, the Council would have treated all registrars the same way, irrespective of their beliefs. Treating all employees in precisely the same way, without exception to the rules, cannot constitute discrimination.

The reason for the Council’s treatment of Miss Ladele was her refusal to do part of her job; it was not her beliefs that were the reason for her treatment.

A good example was given by the EAT. If, through philosophical, anarchist beliefs, an employee burns down the employer’s factory, the employer dismissing thereafter because the employee burned down the factory does not dismiss because of the employee’s philosophical, anarchist beliefs.

The beliefs are the reason for the employee’s action but, crucially, not the reason for the employer’s response.

Had Miss Ladele been willing to carry out the ceremony no further action would have been taken against her. “She could have kept her objection to same sex relationships and there would have been no action taken against her merely because that was her view”. There was, therefore, no inference that she had been subject to disciplinary action because of her beliefs.

Miss Ladele’s second claim was that she was discriminated against because the Council’s requirement that all registrars perform civil partnership functions had the effect of placing her at a particular disadvantage when compared with those who did not share her beliefs on same sex relationships. The Council had a defence; that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

In addition to laws on discrimination, Council policies provided that staff would not act in a discriminatory way. If Miss Ladele’s claim succeeded, the aim of combating discrimination would be undermined if the Council knowingly permitted discrimination by staff ; “…it would be wrong for the employers to accommodate the claimant and thereby lend support to discrimination which the law [and the employer’s policies] forbids.”

“It would be bizarre if the council could be under a duty to provide the relevant service without discrimination and yet could not require its own employees to act likewise.”

Finally, Miss Ladele claimed Harassment. This was rejected on similar grounds to her two claims of discrimination.

The case might be seen as giving too much scope for employers to discipline or dismiss staff whose beliefs are genuine but conflict with the tasks they are asked to complete. A major part of a belief is often taken to mean acting in accordance with that belief rather than simply holding that belief.

The Council came under some criticism from the EAT for their unreasonable behaviour toward Miss Ladele. Their management of the situation had some “unsatisfactory features” and the Council might have treated Miss Ladele more sensitively. Nevertheless, this did not constitute discrimination

However, employers should not take this decision as carte blanche to remove employees because of their beliefs. The important point in Ladele is that, ultimately, it was not her beliefs that resulted in her being disciplined but, in fact, her action in refusing to complete her job as was expected of her.

Should an employer be in any doubt as to how policy or procedure might be construed or interpreted in the context of discrimination law, good legal advice should be sought. Here at Hill Dickinson LLP we have a wide range of expertise in order to deal with the complex situations such as the one illustrated in the Ladele matter.