Ladele v London Borough of Islington
Encyclopedia
Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 is a UK labour law case concerning discrimination against homosexual people by a person of Christian religious persuasion.
and she said this was to do with her religious beliefs. But Islington had designated all their staff to registering civil partnerships as well as marriages. Islington disciplined and threatened to dismiss her. Ladele claimed that this threat was unlawful as it was to not consider her for the post of Superintended Registrar and accommodate her religious beliefs by treating her differently as she should have been under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
regulations 3 or 5.
Tribunal held that she had been directly and indirectly discriminated against, as well as harassed. The EAT reversed the decision. She claimed that allegations of direct discrimination and harassment should have been remitted. Islington and Liberty as intervener argued there was no choice, given the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 to do anything but require Ms Ladele to do her full duties.
So far as indirect discrimination went, it was clear that the council had pursued a legitimate aim that all registrars should perform civil partnership duties as part of its dignity policy. This is performing a purely secular task. Furthermore, her view of marriage was not a core part of Ms Ladele’s religion. The requirement to perform her job’s duties did not prevent her from worshipping as she wished. It is clear that ECHR art 9 is a qualified right. Ms Ladele’s views could not override the employer’s concern to ensure equal respect for the gay community. ‘As Lord Hoffmann put it in R(SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School ‘Article 9 does not require that one should be allowed to manifest one's religion at any time and place of one's own choosing’.’
Dyson LJ and Smith LJ concurred.
Facts
Ms Lillian Ladele worked as Islington’s registrar for marriages. She objected to the Civil Partnership Act 2004Civil Partnership Act 2004
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Bill for this Act was introduced by the Labour government and supported by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition. The Act grants civil partnerships in the United Kingdom with rights and...
and she said this was to do with her religious beliefs. But Islington had designated all their staff to registering civil partnerships as well as marriages. Islington disciplined and threatened to dismiss her. Ladele claimed that this threat was unlawful as it was to not consider her for the post of Superintended Registrar and accommodate her religious beliefs by treating her differently as she should have been under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
The Employment Equality Regulations 2003 is a plank of United Kingdom labour law designed to combat discrimination in relation to people's religion or belief, or absence of religion or belief...
regulations 3 or 5.
Tribunal held that she had been directly and indirectly discriminated against, as well as harassed. The EAT reversed the decision. She claimed that allegations of direct discrimination and harassment should have been remitted. Islington and Liberty as intervener argued there was no choice, given the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 to do anything but require Ms Ladele to do her full duties.
Judgment
Lord Neuberger MR held there was no reason to remit the case on direct discrimination or harassment. The Tribunal erred, because (1) it could not be discrimination to treat all employees in the same way (2) the appropriate comparator was a hypothetical someone who disliked homosexuals without it being due to a religious belief (3) looking at the plain words of regulation 5 it was clear that Ladele had not been harassed.So far as indirect discrimination went, it was clear that the council had pursued a legitimate aim that all registrars should perform civil partnership duties as part of its dignity policy. This is performing a purely secular task. Furthermore, her view of marriage was not a core part of Ms Ladele’s religion. The requirement to perform her job’s duties did not prevent her from worshipping as she wished. It is clear that ECHR art 9 is a qualified right. Ms Ladele’s views could not override the employer’s concern to ensure equal respect for the gay community. ‘As Lord Hoffmann put it in R(SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School ‘Article 9 does not require that one should be allowed to manifest one's religion at any time and place of one's own choosing’.’
Dyson LJ and Smith LJ concurred.