Comments on: Islington successfully appeals Ladele – religious beliefs do not trump social equality

By: Tony Wilson

Tony Wilson — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:06:14 +0000

This case created so much awareness because it involves religious beliefs and rights, but there are other cases where Judges at the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal discriminated against the lay member of the panel and the Claimant because of their colour and evidence were omitted. Complaints were made and ignored by the court, forged documents were used by the respondent and it was an open bully in the Court room. But we still stand to claim that we are against discrimination in the workplace and the society we the law is not equally implemented. We cannot continue to practice injustice; actions should be taken by the government to put an end to bias practice in the system. We are all human, we all have feelings.

By: Ladele’s flawed burden of proof reasoning redux at Usefully Employed

Ladele’s flawed burden of proof reasoning redux at Usefully Employed — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:25:25 +0000

[...] to Alan Beazley of the Employers’ Forum on Age For discussion of Ladele v Islington see this link. Share this [...]

By: BNP Membership - employment law aspects at Usefully Employed

BNP Membership - employment law aspects at Usefully Employed — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:57:09 +0000

[...] About Me & Contact « Islington successfully appeals Ladele – religious beliefs do not trump social equality [...]

By: Blawg Review # 193 « Charon QC…the blawg

Blawg Review # 193 « Charon QC…the blawg — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:41:31 +0000

[...] Usefully Employed considers a different type of wrath… ” Islington successfully appeals Ladele – religious beliefs do not trump social equality” [...]

By: Tony Sidaway

Tony Sidaway — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:34:51 +0000

Thanks for maintaining this website and providing here a clear and digestible summary of a very long judgment. I’d waded through the Christian Institute’s copies of both judgments prior to finding this website, but as you’ll appreciate this is quite difficult for someone without a knowledge of employment statute and case law or the language used in the judgments. For this reason your summary, which provides much more depth than the newspaper reports do, is invaluable.

By: James Medhurst

James Medhurst — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:47:22 +0000

Leaving aside the whole religious issue (I get weary of such things at this time of year), Elias P has taken the opportunity in his last case to say some very interesting things about comparators which could see them becoming less important in the future. The Tribunal in this case identified some completely inappropriate comparators and then made no effort to identity the reason for the treatment of Ms. Ladele. This is a common mistake and hopefully it will change.