An employment tribunal has rejected a claim that a school chaplain suffered discrimination following a sermon he delivered in the school chapel. The sermon had followed the school’s adoption of the “Educate and Celebrate” (E and C) programme, aimed at “tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying and ingrained attitudes in schools”.
The claimant opposed E and C (and what he described as “identity politics”), which he said were contrary to Christian teaching and went beyond tackling bullying. His sermon dealt with this “conflict of values”, and stated that pupils did not have to accept “the ideas and ideologies of LGBT activists” where they conflict with Christian values but should make up their own minds.
The sermon led to an unprecedented number of complaints from staff and pupils. Disciplinary proceedings ensued, and the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct, but reinstated on appeal. He was later made redundant.
Incredibly, the school also made a referral to Prevent (a programme for preventing radicalisation of children) and the Local Authority Designated Officer responsible for safeguarding. No action was taken on those referrals.
The claimant brought claims of religion or belief discrimination, harassment and unfair dismissal, citing interference with his freedom of belief and freedom of expression under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s treatment had not been because of his beliefs, but because of his objectionable manifestation of them (applying Page v NHS Trust Development Authority [2021] EWCA Civ 255) – see my case note here. Following earlier sermons he had given on marriage, sexual orientation and gender identity, the school had told the claimant that these were sensitive topics that should only be dealt with in a classroom setting where ideas can be discussed and challenged. Dealing with them in chapel (where there was no discussion) risked distress and psychological harm to vulnerable LGBT+ students coming to terms with their sexual identity. The claimant had disregarded that advice and given a sermon that was “entirely self-serving and not driven by the needs of pupils”, to try and persuade them to his way of thinking. He had chosen not to share the topic in advance, knowing that he would have been told not to deliver it. The school had been justified in objecting to the way the claimant manifested his beliefs, as he had acted contrary to his safeguarding duties and the school’s statutory duties to pupils.
Lessons to learn:
Once again we see a decision that appears, on the face of it, to be hard on Christians acting out their beliefs in public. The law, particularly the human rights aspect, totally allow people their freedom of belief. What the Courts say though, is that one cannot “objectionable manifest” those beliefs. I personally struggle with calling those reasonable beliefs objectionable, but the test is whether they “had manifested that belief in some particular way to which objection could justifiably be taken”.
And of course some people will, justifiably, take objection to certain beliefs.
If you’re a business owner faced with difficult decisions about religion, belief, transgenderism or gender dysphoria or any similar employment law matters, get in touch for expert guidance.
Case: Randall v Trent College Ltd and others ET/
Source: Practical Law.