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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll