Archive for the ‘Religion or Belief Discrimination’ Category
By Sarah - Thursday, August 12th, 2010
A Council worker, Duke Amachree, has lost his claim against Wandsworth Council for unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief following his dismissal for Gross Misconduct after more than 18 years service. The allegation was that he had suggested that a client with an incurable bowel condition should put her faith in God. The 30 year old client complained to the Council saying she was shocked and upset by the comments.
Amachree was suspended and subsequently dismissed. The Christian Legal Centre backed the claim and argued that the decision to dismiss was disproportionate and unfair (thus being outside the range of reasonable responses) and that the Council had discriminated against Amachree. The Tribunal ruled the dismissal was fair and that there was no discrimination. Further, the tribunal took the view that he had breached confidentiality by publicising his case.
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Olivia - Tuesday, July 6th, 2010
A teacher in Northern Ireland has won £8,250 after bringing a successful claim of discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, as reported in the Irish Times today.
Julie Brudell, along with three other Protestant teachers were selected for redundancy. No Catholic teachers were selected on the basis that the majority of the children were Catholic and the school believed more children may be lost if Catholic teachers were selected.
The Tribunal found that the overriding interest of the school was to ‘protect and secure future viability’ and in so doing Ms Brudell suffered an act of discrimination.
Of note, however, is the amount of the award - relatively low for a discrimination case given the absence of a financial cap.
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Olivia - Wednesday, May 12th, 2010
A preliminary EAT hearing (Mr A Power v Greater Manchester Police Authority) has determined that there is no breach of Article 6 right to a fair trial (and right to cross examine those who accuse him in criminal proceedings) when a corporate employer accused of discrimination fails to produce the decision maker at trial to face cross-examination.
In this case, the material available to GMPA when it decided to dismiss Mr Power was a letter written by its officer, Christine Joyce which stated that ‘information has come to light regarding previous work with neighbouring forces and your current work in the psychic field which is not compatible with employment in GMPA’. Mr Power contended that as Ms Joyce had not been called (as she had been dismissed by GMPA) he had not had a fair trial.
The EAT determined that any explanation given by a Respondent at Tribunal may be less credible if relevant witnesses are not produced and cannot be cross-examined. However, that is not a breach of a convention right. The Article 6 right applies to the confrontation of accusers in a criminal case and not in a discrimination case.
In the decision, the EAT also gave approval, to the decision of the Tribunal, that a belief in the psychic field and spirituality is correctly protected by the 2003 Regulations.
Posted in Employment Tribunal Procedure, Religion or Belief Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Nicky - Thursday, April 15th, 2010
Last year the EAT rejected a claim by Gary McFarlane that his dismissal from Relate Avon was unfair on grounds of his religion. Mr McFarlane was a Christian counsellor who was dismissed for refusing to work with gay couples.
The case is today before the Court of Appeal who will decide whether to grant Mr McFarlane a right to appeal the EAT’s decision. The interpretation of legislation in this area is based on the recent case of Ms Ladele where it was held that a dismissal of a Christian registrar for refusing to conduct civil ceremonies was fair.
Therefore if the Court of Appeal agree to allow Mr McFarlane a right to appeal then this will create great confusion for employers in deciding whether an individuals religious beliefs are more important than an individuals sexual orientation.
Interesting…
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sexual Orientation Discrimination | 4 comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Friday, March 26th, 2010
In the case of Taylor v XLN Telecom Ltd and others [UKEAT/0385/09/ZT] reported today the Employment Appeal overturned the decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Claimant had been dismissed partly because he had made a complaint of racial discrimination but declined to make any award for injury to feelings or personal (psychiatric) injury because although there was evidence the Claimant had suffered both in evidence he attributed it to his dismissal and the manner of it rather than the victimisation.
The Tribunal felt bound by Skyrail Oceanic Ltd v Coleman [1981] which stated that “any injury to feelings must result from the knowledge that it was an act of sex discrimination…” The EAT held that the Claimant was entitled to recover for any injury to feelings and personal injury without the need to attribute the injury specifically to knowledge of the element of discrimination. Skyrail was not authority to the contrary.
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Olivia - Wednesday, March 24th, 2010
The third reading of the Equality Bill took place in the House of Lords yesterday (see Hansard for the full transcript). The Bill has now been passed and returned to the Commons with amendments. The Government are hoping for Royal Assent before the General Election.
Of particular note is the debate as to what could potentially amount to a philosophical belief in relation to the withdrawal of the amendment to the definition which would have clarified that cults are not a philosophical belief. ‘Shock’ was expressed at the length of the Code of Practice !
Also of note is the agreed amendment enabling civil partnerships to take place in religious premises.
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Tuesday, March 9th, 2010
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is currently drafting a code of practice to accompany the new Equality Bill when this becomes law. The Code helps to interpret the law and will explain the legislation and what it means in the same way as the current Codes of Practice do.
According to the Code of Practice a belief need not include a faith or worship of a god/s but must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world. As such atheists, vegans, vegetarians and other groups may be protected under the Code which is not what the Government intended. The guidance ties in with the decision last year that climate change could be a philosophical belief.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission still has consultation open on the draft Code of Practice to accompany the long awaited Equality Bill. Consultation closes in April so you need to have your say now!
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Nicky - Wednesday, January 27th, 2010
Recruitment consultant, Nicole Mamo, was astonished when her advertisement for a cleaner was rejected from Job Centre Plus. She was informed that she was unable to advertise for a “reliable person” as this was discriminating against unreliable people!
Fore more details click here.
The legal position is that an advertisement cannot discriminate against someone on the grounds of their sex, sexual orientation, disability, age, race or religion or religious belief. For example “school leaver”.
Therefore the reliability of a person has nothing to do with any of the six grounds of discrimination as listed above and cannot in itself constitute discrimination.
Posted in Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Monday, December 21st, 2009
In what appears to be a bout of pre-christmas bar humbug, a second claim reported in the press has failed and the Claimant is set to have a costs award made against him for an amount to be determined.
The Muslim chef brought a claim for religious discirmination against Scotland Yard for having to cook pork sausages and bacon. He claimed the suggestion by bosses that he should wear gloves and use tongs to cook them left him feeling stressed and humiliated but this was not upheld. This was because in evidence it came out that he had asked for a bacon roll for his own consumption previously and in fact ate pork. The fact he had knowingly come into contact with (and in fact eaten) pork products previously meant his claim was doomed from the start. It therefore had no reasonable prospects of success and he knew it.
The Daily mail has reported that the costs bill against the Claimant could amount to over £75,000!
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Olivia - Wednesday, November 4th, 2009
You may have heard in the news on Monday that Mr Nicholson was triumphant in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London who upheld the decision of the Tribunal that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and therefore protected by the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003.
For a lively debate on the significance of this decision and an interview with the man himself, the so-called ‘Green Martyr’ log onto playback of Jeremy Vine’s Radio 2 chat show today.
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
