The Equality Act 2010 offers protection against discrimination to people with certain characteristics, collectively referred to as protected characteristics. Under the act, these protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity.
With this in mind, is it lawful to dismiss someone with a protected characteristic in circumstances where their beliefs cause them to discriminate against another protected characteristic?
Yes, held the Court of Appeal in the case of Page v Lord Chancellor, which considered whether a magistrate was discriminated against when he was dismissed after refusing to grant an order for a same sex couple to adopt a child, based on his religious views.
Facts of the case
- The Claimant, Mr Page, was a Magistrate on the Central Kent bench and a practicing Christian.
- Mr Page was part of the family panel hearing an adoption application from a same sex couple. As part of the hearing, Mr Page expressed views based on his Christian beliefs and declined to sign an order approving of the adoption.
- Mr Page later appeared on BBC news stating that in his opinion, his responsibility was to do what he considered best for the child. He went on to say that he felt it would be better for the child to be adopted by a man and a woman.
- Following the interview, Mr Page was subject to disciplinary proceedings and he was removed from the magistracy. This was on the basis that he had brought the magistracy into disrepute. It was concluded that Mr Page would continue to be prejudiced against same-sex adopters.
- Mr Page claimed discrimination and/or harassment on the grounds of his religion or belief and/or victimisation.
- Mr Page’s claims were dismissed by both the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT).
Judgment
The Court of Appeal agreed with the decisions of the Employment Tribunal and EAT, finding that Mr Page was not dismissed as a result of his religious beliefs or because he had complained about discrimination, but because he had failed to act impartially in his role as a magistrate.
On being appointed as a magistrate, he had signed a “Declaration and Undertaking” which contained the terms:
“I acknowledge and undertake:
- that it will be my duty to administer justice according to the law;
- that my actions as a magistrate will be free from any political, racial, sexual or other bias;
- that I will be circumspect in my conduct and maintain the dignity and good reputation of the magistracy at all times in my private, working and public life.”
Finding the Balance
It can be difficult for employers to approach conflicting beliefs, particularly where an employee complains of discrimination after expressing their own views on other protected characteristics. Employers need to tread to carefully to balance equality and remind workers that expressing their beliefs in the workplace may in itself be discriminatory towards others.
This case highlights a subtle distinction between discrimination and victimisation. The key facts of the case were not whether Mr Page had been dismissed as a result of his religion, but whether he had been dismissed for complaining of discrimination. Ultimately, it was found that the reason for dismissal was not because of his religion or beliefs, but because he was unable to carry out his duties in an unbiased way.
You can read the full judgment here.
If you need help with a specific employment issue, click here to get in touch and find out how we can help you.