Comments on: Registrars - Religious Discrimination - 2

By: Islington successfully appeals Ladele - religious beliefs do not trump social equality at Usefully Employed

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:08:18 +0000

[...] covered the original tribunal judgment (together with what I thought was wrong about it) in a post at the time; Carl Gardner at Head of Legal also pitched in to say that he thought the decision wrong and both [...]

By: Muslim alcohol handling discrimination claim hits Tesco at Usefully Employed

Muslim alcohol handling discrimination claim hits Tesco at Usefully Employed — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:01:03 +0000

[...] love to try and call this one, but post-Ladele who knows which way the tribunal will find? The system is badly in need of a definitive case on [...]

By: An upstanding member of the public « Beside the point

An upstanding member of the public « Beside the point — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:31:45 +0000

[...] standards of propriety such that her outrage is that of the public. I doubt it, but after the Islington registrar fiasco, who [...]

By: Usefully Employed

Usefully Employed — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:43:29 +0000

Well, yes, the judgment says attack of religious anti-homosexuality by homosexuals is acceptable, but not homosexual anti-religion by homosexuals. Why can’t we all just get along?!

OK, so that’s a bit glib, but it really does show up the tribunal’s failure at its self-professed approach of not making value judgements.

Anyway, one way or another we’ll have a nicely reasoned judgment in a few weeks that will still get someone or other’s back up, but at least will hopefully be logical. Although, after Malcolm, I’m starting to lose faith…

By: Jane

Jane — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:29:51 +0000

I am also concerned by para. 63 (the finding that the claimant suffered a detriment when the respondent failed to correct allegations made by other coworkers that she was homophobic)
The effect of this portion of the judgment is to say that we must tolerate intolerance where it has a religious basis. By contrast, the tribunal could not have found such “intolerance of intolerence” to be discrimination where the homophobic view was not grounded in religion.

By: Plaudit | Nearly Legal

Plaudit | Nearly Legal — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:07:00 +0000

[...] Tribunal, EAT and statutory employment related matters, it has really come in to its own. Try the post on the contentious Christian Registrar case Ladele v LB Islington as a [...]

By: Nearly Legal

Nearly Legal — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:44:33 +0000

Thanks for a very interesting account of the judgment. I’m delighted that my ill-informed knee-jerk rant in the comments on Family Lore was more or less justified. Employment very obviously isn’t my area, but post McClintock, I couldn’t see how discrimination could be found. Your view makes sense of this for me.

Off topic, I’d also like to say that you have made this blog into a really excellent resource and a cracking read, even for a housing lawyer like me.

By: Quentin

Quentin — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:30:12 +0000

Thanks for a very interesting read. As a layman, I found it very useful to read an expert’s take on the tribunal’s decision.

Meanwhile, it seems possible that one of the panel members is the retired Director of Education of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark.

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/07/17/ladele-v-islington/

Would this fact have any bearing on an appeal, do you think?

Thanks.

By: Usefully Employed

Usefully Employed — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:46:29 +0000

Hi Mark, sorry for the delay in replying to your comment.

You’ve misunderstood Igen v Wong - read reg 29 of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

The burden doesn’t shift for subsequent instances once one is proven, there is a two-step burden for all allegations.

In relation to each allegation the employee must first adduce evidence which proves, in the absence of any evidence from the employer that there has been discrimination. If this hurdle is passed, then the burden passes to the employer to prove on the balance of probabilities that discrimination didn’t occur. This isn’t usually an ‘impossible’ position for the employer, but it certainly doesn’t make it any easier.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:09:36 +0000

Hello,
Thanks for the interesting blog, I’ve neen trying to understand this judgement and found your piece most interesting but wondered whether you could clarify some points, sorry if they’re daft questions and don’t feel obliged but here they are.

A principle from the Igen Ltd Vs Wong (2005) case seems to imply that once an employer is guilty of one instance of discrimination, the burden of proof switches for subsequent instances. Ladele proved single instance because her complaint of discrimination on religious grounds was treated castly different to her co-workers complaint on discrimination by sexual orientation. She received no reply, they received information on her to post on the internet.

It’s pretty nasty treatment of Ms Ladele but how does this qualify as religious discrimination? The judgement seemed to imply that treating a religious complaint less seriously than a sexuality based one was by definition religious discrimination. Is that so?

It seems crucial, am I correct in believing that once the burden of proof has been reversed then the employer is in an impossible position as they have to prove they weren’t being discriminatory?

Lastly, why was that particular instance that gave her the trump card of burden reversal dealt with first? as chronologically it occured after the initial dispute.