Religious Discrimination - It's All in the Delivery

The Case in Detail

Mr Page was an NED of an NHS Trust (Trust), on a fixed-term contract due to expire in 2016. He was also a lay Magistrate in the Family courts and participated in decisions involving adoptions. In 2014 Mr Page was involved in an application for adoption by a same-sex couple, and Mr Page, who held strong Christian views, expressed his views that same-sex couple adoption was "not normal."

Mr Page made his views very clear and, after continuing to give interviews about this to various media outlets, was subsequently removed as a lay magistrate. Mr Page participated in further media interviews about what had happened and continued to assert that he did not believe in same-sex adoption. The Trust warned Mr Page that he should contact them before speaking to the media, however he took part in a further interview with the BBC where he advocated that he could not see how adoption of this nature could ever be in the best interests of the child.

The Trust suspended Mr Page and his contract was not renewed which, the Trust claimed, was because all employees of the Trust had a duty to uphold the provisions of the Equality Act which prohibit discrimination. Mr Page therefore brought claims for direct and indirect religious discrimination and victimisation against the Trust. The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed his claims and Mr Page appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

The EAT's Decision

The EAT found that the ET had been correct in their finding that the Trust's decision to remove Mr Page had been because of his decision to speak to the media without first discussing it with the Trust, and not because of his actual religious beliefs. This would have had an adverse impact on the Trust's ability to connect with the LGBT community.

In respect of his direct discrimination claim, the EAT dismissed Mr Page's argument  that the ET had not properly considered how a 'real or hypothetical comparator' would have been treated. As there was clearly a non-discriminatory reason for their decision, there was no need to construct a comparator in this case.

In relation to his claims of indirect discrimination, Mr Page had to show that the provision, criterion or practice that the Trust had subjected Mr Page to would apply equally to people who did not have Mr Page's religious beliefs, but the Trust actions would nevertheless put people who do share his religious beliefs at a disadvantage. The EAT agreed with the ET that Mr Page had failed to establish that a group had been put at a disadvantage, and as this was an essential element of the test for indirect discrimination, this appeal was also dismissed.

With regards to his victimisation claim, the EAT held that the Trust's reasons for not renewing his term were properly separable from the allegations of discrimination he had raised against the Trust and the Lord Chancellor in respect of his magistracy. This appeal was therefore also dismissed.

What Does This Mean for You?

This case is another example of the fine balance between religion and sexual orientation in discrimination cases. However, it is established law that a distinction can be drawn between an employee holding a particular religious belief and the manner in which they express it. In this particular case, Mr Page continued to contact the media when he had been repeatedly warned against doing so.

For more information please contact Ellie Boyd in our Employment Law team on 020 7665 0940, or complete the form below.