header-logo header-logo

01 March 2013
Issue: 7550 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment—Religious belief—Harassment

Heathfield v Times Newspaper Ltd UKEATPA/1305/12/BA

Employment Appeal Tribunal, Underhill J, 17 January 2013

The use of an expletive in a sentence containing “the Pope” was in the circumstances an expression of bad temper and not hostility to Roman Catholicism; it therefore did not amount to harassment within the meaning of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (ERR 2003).

Michael Reed (instructed by the Free Representation Unit) for the employee.

In 2010 the employee worked as a subeditor for the employer, a well-known national newspaper.

On 12 March, during the visit of the Pope to the United Kingdom, the paper was preparing a story about the Pope having allegedly protected a paedophile priest. There was some delay in producing the story, and one of the editors, W, shouted across the room “Can anyone tell what’s happening to the fucking Pope?”.

There was no answer so he repeated the question more loudly. The employee, a Roman Catholic, took offence. He raised a complaint which in his view the newspaper failed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Senior associate joins family law team in London

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Firm appoints chief financial officer as it expands Essex office footprint

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

NEWS
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll