header-logo header-logo

Employment—Religious belief—Harassment

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll