Description
The EAT was tasked in this case with determining whether it had been discriminatory to withdraw a job offer made to a Christian worker after finding out he had previously written Facebook posts in which he spoke negatively about homosexuality. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Lefebvre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Ngole and Touchstone Leeds, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether the withdrawal of a Christian mental health support worker's job offer, due to the fact he had expressed negative views about homosexuality on social media several years earlier, was discriminatory. N applied for the role of discharge mental health support worker with Touchstone, a charity providing mental health services in Yorkshire. Touchstone is committed to promoting equality, diversity and inclusion and has a strong track record of specifically adapting and tailoring its services to the LGBTQI+ community. Around a third of its workforce and 12% of its service users are from that community. N was successful at interview and Touchstone made a job offer to N, which was conditional on receiving satisfactory references. After N provided two references that stated little more than the dates of his employment, he was asked for a third reference, but provided a reference from a family friend. Due to the difficulties with the references, a director of Touchstone carried out an internet search and found news stories about a claim N had successfully brought against Sheffield University many years earlier, following his dismissal from a social work course for posting negative comments about homosexuality on Facebook, which had led to a Court of Appeal decision. Thereafter, Touchstone wrote to N revoking his job offer. N challenged this decision and Touchstone offered him a second interview to discuss the issue. However, this second interview did not persuade Touchstone to rescind its withdrawal of the job offer. N brought a claim in which Touchstone accepted that his beliefs were protected, but disputed its actions were discriminatory. The tribunal held that Touchstone had directly discriminated against N on the ground of religion and belief by withdrawing the job offer before offering him a chance to comment on its reasons. Although Touchstone's reason for withdrawing the job offer to N, i.e. protecting the welfare of its service users, was sufficiently important to justify the limitation of his rights to freedom of expression, withdrawing his job offer before the second interview was not proportionate and amounted to direct discrimination. The other claims brought by N were dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld his appeal and held that the Tribunal had erred in law in its analysis of certain aspects of the complaints. The appeal, in relation to the complaint by N that inviting him to attend a second interview was itself discriminatory, succeeded to the extent that it was based on the concern that service users might come across the news stories, although this challenge failed insofar as it was based on concerns about whether N might provide the required support to Touchstone service users and staff from the LGBTQI+ community. The appeal also succeeded in respect of the complaint by N about the decision not to reinstate his job offer - that aspect of the claim will have to be analysed again in full. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has sent the claim back to the same tribunal to determine these outstanding points. The Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that the tribunal will now have the benefit of the Court of Appeal's decision in Higgs and Farmers School, which has since clarified the law in this area to make it clear that the dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination. Whereas if the dismissal is motivated not simply by the expression of the belief itself, or third parties' reaction to it, but by something objectionable in the way in which it was expressed, determined objectively, then the dismissal will be lawful if, but only if, the employer shows that it was a proportionate response to the objectionable feature, in short, that it was objectively justified. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
The EAT was tasked in this case with determining whether it had been discriminatory to withdraw a job offer made to a Christian worker after finding out he had previously written Facebook posts in which he spoke negatively about homosexuality. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Lefebvre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Ngole and Touchstone Leeds, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether the withdrawal of a Christian mental health support worker's job offer, due to the fact he had expressed negative views about homosexuality on social media several years earlier, was discriminatory. N applied for the role of discharge mental health support worker with Touchstone, a charity providing mental health services in Yorkshire. Touchstone is committed to promoting equality, diversity and inclusion and has a strong track record of specifically adapting and tailoring its services to the LGBTQI+ community. Around a third of its workforce and 12% of its service users are from that community. N was successful at interview and Touchstone made a job offer to N, which was conditional on receiving satisfactory references. After N provided two references that stated little more than the dates of his employment, he was asked for a third reference, but provided a reference from a family friend. Due to the difficulties with the references, a director of Touchstone carried out an internet search and found news stories about a claim N had successfully brought against Sheffield University many years earlier, following his dismissal from a social work course for posting negative comments about homosexuality on Facebook, which had led to a Court of Appeal decision. Thereafter, Touchstone wrote to N revoking his job offer. N challenged this decision and Touchstone offered him a second interview to discuss the issue. However, this second interview did not persuade Touchstone to rescind its withdrawal of the job offer. N brought a claim in which Touchstone accepted that his beliefs were protected, but disputed its actions were discriminatory. The tribunal held that Touchstone had directly discriminated against N on the ground of religion and belief by withdrawing the job offer before offering him a chance to comment on its reasons. Although Touchstone's reason for withdrawing the job offer to N, i.e. protecting the welfare of its service users, was sufficiently important to justify the limitation of his rights to freedom of expression, withdrawing his job offer before the second interview was not proportionate and amounted to direct discrimination. The other claims brought by N were dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld his appeal and held that the Tribunal had erred in law in its analysis of certain aspects of the complaints. The appeal, in relation to the complaint by N that inviting him to attend a second interview was itself discriminatory, succeeded to the extent that it was based on the concern that service users might come across the news stories, although this challenge failed insofar as it was based on concerns about whether N might provide the required support to Touchstone service users and staff from the LGBTQI+ community. The appeal also succeeded in respect of the complaint by N about the decision not to reinstate his job offer - that aspect of the claim will have to be analysed again in full. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has sent the claim back to the same tribunal to determine these outstanding points. The Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that the tribunal will now have the benefit of the Court of Appeal's decision in Higgs and Farmers School, which has since clarified the law in this area to make it clear that the dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination. Whereas if the dismissal is motivated not simply by the expression of the belief itself, or third parties' reaction to it, but by something objectionable in the way in which it was expressed, determined objectively, then the dismissal will be lawful if, but only if, the employer shows that it was a proportionate response to the objectionable feature, in short, that it was objectively justified. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
Description
The EAT was tasked in this case with determining whether it had been discriminatory to withdraw a job offer made to a Christian worker after finding out he had previously written Facebook posts in which he spoke negatively about homosexuality. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Lefebvre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Ngole and Touchstone Leeds, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether the withdrawal of a Christian mental health support worker's job offer, due to the fact he had expressed negative views about homosexuality on social media several years earlier, was discriminatory. N applied for the role of discharge mental health support worker with Touchstone, a charity providing mental health services in Yorkshire. Touchstone is committed to promoting equality, diversity and inclusion and has a strong track record of specifically adapting and tailoring its services to the LGBTQI+ community. Around a third of its workforce and 12% of its service users are from that community. N was successful at interview and Touchstone made a job offer to N, which was conditional on receiving satisfactory references. After N provided two references that stated little more than the dates of his employment, he was asked for a third reference, but provided a reference from a family friend. Due to the difficulties with the references, a director of Touchstone carried out an internet search and found news stories about a claim N had successfully brought against Sheffield University many years earlier, following his dismissal from a social work course for posting negative comments about homosexuality on Facebook, which had led to a Court of Appeal decision. Thereafter, Touchstone wrote to N revoking his job offer. N challenged this decision and Touchstone offered him a second interview to discuss the issue. However, this second interview did not persuade Touchstone to rescind its withdrawal of the job offer. N brought a claim in which Touchstone accepted that his beliefs were protected, but disputed its actions were discriminatory. The tribunal held that Touchstone had directly discriminated against N on the ground of religion and belief by withdrawing the job offer before offering him a chance to comment on its reasons. Although Touchstone's reason for withdrawing the job offer to N, i.e. protecting the welfare of its service users, was sufficiently important to justify the limitation of his rights to freedom of expression, withdrawing his job offer before the second interview was not proportionate and amounted to direct discrimination. The other claims brought by N were dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld his appeal and held that the Tribunal had erred in law in its analysis of certain aspects of the complaints. The appeal, in relation to the complaint by N that inviting him to attend a second interview was itself discriminatory, succeeded to the extent that it was based on the concern that service users might come across the news stories, although this challenge failed insofar as it was based on concerns about whether N might provide the required support to Touchstone service users and staff from the LGBTQI+ community. The appeal also succeeded in respect of the complaint by N about the decision not to reinstate his job offer - that aspect of the claim will have to be analysed again in full. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has sent the claim back to the same tribunal to determine these outstanding points. The Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that the tribunal will now have the benefit of the Court of Appeal's decision in Higgs and Farmers School, which has since clarified the law in this area to make it clear that the dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination. Whereas if the dismissal is motivated not simply by the expression of the belief itself, or third parties' reaction to it, but by something objectionable in the way in which it was expressed, determined objectively, then the dismissal will be lawful if, but only if, the employer shows that it was a proportionate response to the objectionable feature, in short, that it was objectively justified. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
The EAT was tasked in this case with determining whether it had been discriminatory to withdraw a job offer made to a Christian worker after finding out he had previously written Facebook posts in which he spoke negatively about homosexuality. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Lefebvre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Ngole and Touchstone Leeds, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether the withdrawal of a Christian mental health support worker's job offer, due to the fact he had expressed negative views about homosexuality on social media several years earlier, was discriminatory. N applied for the role of discharge mental health support worker with Touchstone, a charity providing mental health services in Yorkshire. Touchstone is committed to promoting equality, diversity and inclusion and has a strong track record of specifically adapting and tailoring its services to the LGBTQI+ community. Around a third of its workforce and 12% of its service users are from that community. N was successful at interview and Touchstone made a job offer to N, which was conditional on receiving satisfactory references. After N provided two references that stated little more than the dates of his employment, he was asked for a third reference, but provided a reference from a family friend. Due to the difficulties with the references, a director of Touchstone carried out an internet search and found news stories about a claim N had successfully brought against Sheffield University many years earlier, following his dismissal from a social work course for posting negative comments about homosexuality on Facebook, which had led to a Court of Appeal decision. Thereafter, Touchstone wrote to N revoking his job offer. N challenged this decision and Touchstone offered him a second interview to discuss the issue. However, this second interview did not persuade Touchstone to rescind its withdrawal of the job offer. N brought a claim in which Touchstone accepted that his beliefs were protected, but disputed its actions were discriminatory. The tribunal held that Touchstone had directly discriminated against N on the ground of religion and belief by withdrawing the job offer before offering him a chance to comment on its reasons. Although Touchstone's reason for withdrawing the job offer to N, i.e. protecting the welfare of its service users, was sufficiently important to justify the limitation of his rights to freedom of expression, withdrawing his job offer before the second interview was not proportionate and amounted to direct discrimination. The other claims brought by N were dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld his appeal and held that the Tribunal had erred in law in its analysis of certain aspects of the complaints. The appeal, in relation to the complaint by N that inviting him to attend a second interview was itself discriminatory, succeeded to the extent that it was based on the concern that service users might come across the news stories, although this challenge failed insofar as it was based on concerns about whether N might provide the required support to Touchstone service users and staff from the LGBTQI+ community. The appeal also succeeded in respect of the complaint by N about the decision not to reinstate his job offer - that aspect of the claim will have to be analysed again in full. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has sent the claim back to the same tribunal to determine these outstanding points. The Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that the tribunal will now have the benefit of the Court of Appeal's decision in Higgs and Farmers School, which has since clarified the law in this area to make it clear that the dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination. Whereas if the dismissal is motivated not simply by the expression of the belief itself, or third parties' reaction to it, but by something objectionable in the way in which it was expressed, determined objectively, then the dismissal will be lawful if, but only if, the employer shows that it was a proportionate response to the objectionable feature, in short, that it was objectively justified. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
