Teacher's right to freedom of belief, religion and expression are lawfully qualified by professional obligations
In a recent case, the High Court of Justice has held that a teacher's ECHR rights under Articles 9 and 10 are qualified rights that must be balanced against professional responsibility.
What were the facts of the case?
In the case of Sutcliffe v Secretary of State for Education, the appellant was an evangelical Christian teacher who held strong views regarding gender identity and homosexuality. The appellant taught a transgender student who had been born female but presented as male. The student used male pronouns, following agreement to do so from the school. The student had only ever been known as male at the school and only a few people were aware that the student was transgender.
The school received a complaint that the appellant had deliberately failed to use the student's preferred pronouns in the classroom multiple times. Whilst the school investigated this complaint, the appellant was interviewed on national television, during which he referred to the student using female pronouns and 'outed' the student as transgender.
A professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency subsequently held that the appellant had failed to comply with Teachers' Standards. It found that the appellant had deliberately misused the student's pronouns multiple times and had failed to treat the student with dignity and respect. The appellant was found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. It was recommended to the Secretary of State that the appellant should be prohibited from teaching for a minimum of two years.
High Court
The appellant appealed this decision, claiming that this prohibition was an unjustified interference of his rights. The High Court has rejected this appeal, finding that the prohibition order was necessary and proportionate.
The High Court observed that the appellant's freedom of thought, conscience and religion was protected by Article 9 of the ECHR, and his right to express his opinions by Article 10. However, these rights are qualified. It is fundamental that teachers safeguard the wellbeing of the children in their care and treat them with dignity and respect.
Learning points for employers
Whilst this case concerns the manifestation of an individual's belief within the context of an education institution (where teachers are subject to specific regulatory controls), it has general relevance for all employers. The case highlights a theme that has arisen in a line of cases over recent years. Employees are free to hold religious beliefs and cannot be discriminated against for holding those beliefs. However, they are unlikely to be protected if the manifestation of those beliefs discriminates against others.