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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll