header-logo header-logo

Sunday discrimination clarifies faith claim

09 December 2013
Issue: 7588 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Religious belief need not be a “core component of the Christian faith” to establish claim

A religious belief need not be a “core component of the Christian faith” to establish a discrimination claim as long as it is “genuinely” held, the Court of Appeal has held in its ruling on Sunday working.

Celestina Mba resigned “with regret” from her position as a care-worker at a children’s home after her employer required her to work on Sundays, which she considers a day of rest and worship. She brought proceedings alleging constructive unfair dismissal and indirect religious discrimination.

In their judgments, the employment tribunal and employment appeal tribunal said Mba’s beliefs regarding Sundays were “not a core component” of her faith.

On appeal, however, in Mba v Merton Borough [2013] EWCA Civ 1562, Lord Justice Maurice Kay said: “The use of the disjunctive—‘religion or belief’—demonstrates that it is not necessary to pitch the comparison at a macro level. 

“Thus it is not necessary to establish that all or most Christians, or all or most non-conformist Christians, are or would be put at a particular disadvantage. It is permissible to define a claimant’s religion or belief more narrowly than that. In my judgment, this is where the employment tribunal went wrong.”

Nevertheless, the Court dismissed Mba’s appeal as, on the facts, it was proportionate for her employers to require her to work on a Sunday.

Michael Powner, partner at Charles Russell, says: “The judgment will attract criticism from Christian groups who perceive that recent cases balancing the Christian faith against other protected characteristics (such as sexual orientation) have gone too far in favour of the latter. It is of course likely to be welcomed by those employers in sectors requiring cover seven days a week because if Ms Mba had been successful, the consequences would have been far reaching and could have allowed people of other religions to refuse to work on certain days of religious significance.”

 

Issue: 7588 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
Transferring anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing supervision to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could create extra paperwork and increase costs for clients, lawyers have warned 
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
As he steps down as Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Julian Flaux reflects on over 40 years in law, citing independence, impartiality and integrity as guiding principles. In a special interview with Grania Langdon-Down for NLJ, Sir Julian highlights morale, mentorship and openness as key to a thriving judiciary
Dinsdale v Fowell is a High Court case entangling bigamy, intestacy and modern family structures, examined in this week's NLJ by Shivi Rajput of Stowe Family Law
back-to-top-scroll