The EAT has identified three elements to a successful claim of indirect discrimination, says Richard Leiper
T he recent case of McClintock v Department for Constitutional Affairs UKEAT/0223/07, [2007] All ER (D) 25 (Nov) suggests that an employee may not rely upon his religious or philosophical beliefs to discriminate against others.
Andrew McClintock is a practising Christian and a justice of the peace. He had been a member of the family panel and so was involved in the placing of children. As a result of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004), same-sex couples are to be treated in the same way as heterosexual couples. In anticipation of this change, McClintock sought an exception from his duty to officiate in such cases. He had not appreciated that individual homosexuals, including those in same-sex relationships, had been entitled to adopt or foster children before the changes made by CPA 2004. The change made by the legislation was that same-sex couples can now take joint responsibility.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) refused to grant McClintock
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
