In the case of Ngole v Touchstone Leeds, the respondent was a charity providing mental health services, including to members of the LGBTQI+ community. The respondent made a conditional offer of employment to the claimant, who was a Christian social worker.
After making the conditional offer, the respondent carried out an online search on the claimant. In so doing, it found that the claimant had been dismissed from a previous post for posting derogatory comments on Facebook about gay and bisexual people.
The respondent withdrew the job offer. The claimant challenged this decision and was offered a second interview to discuss the respondent's concerns. Following the second interview, the respondent did not reinstate the job offer. The claimant brought claims of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment on the grounds of religion or belief.
The Tribunal found that the withdrawal of the job offer was direct discrimination on the grounds of the claimant's religion or belief. The Tribunal dismissed the claimant's other claims.
In respect of the direct discrimination claim, the Tribunal found that the respondent could have adopted a less intrusive approach to explore the claimant's suitability for the post. It should not have automatically resorted to withdrawing the job offer. Whilst the respondent legitimately wanted to protect the welfare of its service users, it could have allowed the claimant the opportunity to make representations before withdrawing the offer. Had it done so, the Tribunal found that the impact on the claimant could have been lessened. Having proceeded straight to revoking the job offer, the impact on the claimant went beyond what was necessary to achieve the charity's aims.
Having reached this finding, the Tribunal went on to consider whether the refusal to reinstate the job offer was also directly discriminatory. It found that it was not. The respondent had not failed to reinstate the job offer because of the claimant's religious beliefs, but because the claimant had been unable to provide the necessary reassurances at the second interview that he was suitable for the role. On this basis, the Tribunal found the respondent had acted reasonably.
This case highlights the difficult balancing exercise involved in balancing competing rights in the workplace. Employers must weigh the right to freedom of expression and religious beliefs against the need to maintain a safe and inclusive environment for their workforce and clients. Decisions should be guided by a commitment to proportionality and fairness, ensuring that any limitations on individual rights are justified to achieve the organisation's legitimate aims.
We understand the claimant plans to appeal the Tribunal's decision and we will continue to report on developments in this case.
You may like to explore our Leading EDI eLearning from our lawyers on how to embody good practice in how they lead and how they operate as part of a team.