header-logo header-logo

Trust wins discrimination appeal

12 April 2016
Issue: 7694 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No unlawful discrimination took place when an NHS Trust disciplined a Christian employee for improperly promoting her religious beliefs.

Wasteney v East London NHS Trust (App No. UKEAT/0157/15/LA) concerned the Trust’s action after receiving complaints against Wasteney of religious “grooming” from a more junior employee of Muslim faith. The alleged “grooming” consisted of “praying with the junior worker and the laying on of hands, giving a book to that worker, which concerned the conversion to Christianity of a Muslim woman, and inviting her to various services and events at the claimant’s church”. After investigation, the Trust found Wasteney guilty of serious misconduct, namely the blurring of professional boundaries and the subjection of a junior colleague to improper pressure and unwanted conduct. She was given a final written warning, reduced on appeal to a first written warning.

Judge Eady QC dismissed the appeal, stating in her judgment that: “The claimant was not subjected to disciplinary process or sanction because she manifested her religious belief in voluntary and consensual exchanges with a colleague but because—as the employment tribunal expressly found—she subjected a subordinate to unwanted and unwelcome conduct, going substantially beyond ‘religious discussion’, without regard to her own influential position. 

“The treatment of which the claimant complained was because of, and related to, those inappropriate actions; not any legitimate manifestation of her belief.” 

Employment law specialist Dr John McMullen, a partner at Wrigleys, says: "This case confirms that everyone has the right to manifest their religion and that to discipline someone for doing so would be unlawful discrimination. 

“However an employer would be entitled to discipline someone for subjecting (as in this case) a junior colleague to unwanted pressure and unwelcome conduct by foisting their religion on them. The right to manifest one's religion can include an element of proselytization but an employer is entitled to take reasonable action to protect the rights of another person who simply does not want to give up their own religion."

Issue: 7694 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll