Disciplinary Action Was Not Discriminatory Following Chaplain's Controversial Sermon
An Employment Tribunal has found that a college was entitled to object to the way its former Chaplain manifested his beliefs, following a sermon he delivered in the college chapel.
What Was the Background to the Claim?
In the case of Randall v Trent College Ltd, Mr Randall was employed as the Chaplain at an Anglican independent school. Mr Randall is a Christian. He also holds gender critical beliefs, believes that marriage is a union between men and women, and considers that sexual activity occurring outside of marriage is morally wrong.
In 2016, Mr Randall delivered two sermons about same sex marriage and homosexuality. Those sermons prompted complaints. The College told Mr Randall that he should not address those issues in sermons, on the basis they would be better tackled in the classroom environment which allowed for conversation and debate.
Towards the end of the 2017/18 academic year, the College adopted the 'Educate and Celebrate' programme, which is an Ofsted and DfE recognised programme aimed at tackling homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools. Mr Randall expressed concerns about the programme, and subsequently delivered a sermon in which he told pupils that they did not have to accept the ideas and ideologies of LGBT activists.
Mr Randall was disciplined following the sermon and was later made redundant. He brought claims of religion or belief discrimination, harassment and unfair dismissal.
What Did the Tribunal Decide?
The Tribunal found that Mr Randall had not been treated in the way he had because of his beliefs, but because of the way he expressed them. The College had been justified in objecting to Mr Randall's sermons. Further, Mr Randall's subsequent dismissal for redundancy was fair. The Tribunal rejected all of Mr Randall's claims.
What Can Employers Learn from This Decision?
This is a first instance decision, so it is not binding on other Tribunals. However, it follows a line of recent case law that distinguishes between holding protected beliefs, and manifesting them. The case is a reminder for employers that in a pluralist society, staff may inevitably hold clashing protected beliefs. The key issue for employers is to ensure that such beliefs are not expressed in a way that undermines the rights of others.
