In July, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced that it had applied to intervene in four cases due to be heard by the European Court of Human Rights, all of which were brought by Christian employees who claimed to be victims of religious discrimination in the workplace. In the EHRC’s view, judges have sometimes interpreted the law too narrowly in religion or belief claims and have therefore failed to protect an individual’s right to manifest their belief. Permission has now been granted and the EHRC will use the opportunity to seek clarification of the legal principles that should apply in such cases, which it believes will help resolve differences without the need for recourse to legal action.
The EHRC favours the idea of ‘reasonable accommodations’ that will help employers and others manage how they allow people to manifest their religion or belief. John Wadham, its Group Director, Legal, said, “The idea of making reasonable adjustments to accommodate a person’s needs has served disability discrimination law well for decades. It seems reasonable that a similar concept could be adopted to allow someone to manifest their religious beliefs.”
The four discrimination cases in which the EHRC has sought leave to intervene are not identical as to circumstance. They are:
- Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin against the United Kingdom, which were brought by employees who were prevented from wearing a crucifix or cross at work; and
- Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane against the United Kingdom. Ms Ladele worked as a registrar and was disciplined by Islington Borough Council after she refused to carry out civil partnership ceremonies as to do so would be inconsistent with her religious beliefs. Mr McFarlane worked as a counsellor for Relate and was dismissed after he failed to agree to carry out relationship work involving same-sex sexual issues, as he believes that same-sex sexual activity is against the Bible’s teachings and he should therefore do nothing to endorse such activity.
Whilst an employer might have little difficulty in making an adjustment to its standard uniform policy to allow the wearing of a discreet religious symbol, the second two cases illustrate the potential for conflict that can exist when a religious belief conflicts with laws aimed at protecting the fundamental rights of different minority groups in another area of discrimination law. For that reason, the EHRC proposes to intervene in the Ladele and McFarlane cases on the basis that the domestic courts were right to conclude that the employers’ actions in each case were justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Meanwhile, a Christian midwife, who believes that the Bible teaches that women should not wear clothes meant for men, has lost her claim of religious discrimination against Barking, Havering and Redbridge University NHS Trust. Mrs Adewole had been ordered to wear scrub trousers to prevent infection and was ejected from the operating theatre for wearing a dress. The Employment Tribunal found, however, that the Trust’s strict uniform policy did not disadvantage Christians and was a legitimate and proportionate means of controlling infection.
