Gay registrars who refuse to marry evangelical Christians should be disciplined, EAT rules

12 January 2009

Gay registrars who fail to marry evangelical Christians because of their opposition to civil partnerships should face disciplinary action, the EAT has ruled.

Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar, was threatened with dismissal by Islington council for refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies (see “SJ News” 19 December 2008).

In his last judgment as president of the EAT, Mr Justice Elias strongly criticised an employment tribunal for ruling that she had been the victim of direct and indirect discrimination.

Delivering judgment in London Borough of Islington v Ladele (UKEAT/0453/08), he said that it was wrong for the tribunal to infer that the council acted as it did because of her belief, rather than her conduct.

Mr Justice Elias went on: “Nor is it a breach of the law for management to lack sympathy for the beliefs of certain employees. Christian managers may be wholly unsympathetic to the atheist views of their staff, and vice versa. “That does not involve a breach of these regulations. Provided they do not discriminate against them because of those beliefs, that is enough.”

Mr Justice Elias referred to Azmi v Kirklees Borough Council [2007] IRLR 484, where a Muslim teacher challenged a primary school’s refusal to allow her to wear a niqab, which covered most of her face.

Her claim for direct discrimination failed because the council provided evidence to show that language teaching was more effective with the face uncovered.

Mr Justice Elias also relied on McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs [2008] IRLR 29, where a magistrate claimed direct discrimination after failing to place children seeking adoption with same sex couples.

Mr Justice Elias siad his treatment was not because of his religious beliefs but because of his refusal to honour his judicial oath.

On the question of whether Lillian Ladele was a victim of indirect discrimination, he said: “We do not for one moment doubt the sincerity of her belief, nor her claim that in all other ways she treats people the same regardless of their sexual orientation.

“However, the issue is not, as the Tribunal found, a matter of giving equal respect to the religious rights of the claimant and the rights of the gay community.

“It is whether, given the legitimate aim, the means adopted by the council to achieve that aim were proportional.

“In any event, in our view giving equal respect in this context would require that the council should also discipline gay registrars who refused to marry, say, certain Christian evangelicals, because the registrars objected to their hostility to civil partnerships.”

Mr Justice Elias concluded that the tribunal erred in finding any grounds for discrimination and said there was “no proper evidential basis” by which it could reach that conclusion.