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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll