What a religious discrimination ruling means for local government
|
Version 0 of 1. The European court of human rights upheld a claim of religious discrimination against the UK government earlier this week, but the most important part of the decision for public sector employers can be found in the claims they rejected. Nadia Eweida successfully argued that her right to freedom of religion was not protected when her employer, British Airways, required her to conceal her silver cross. However, in the same judgment, the court rejected Lillian Ladele's arguments, after she was disciplined as a registrar by Islington borough council. She had refused to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies, on the basis that she believed to do so was incompatible with her Christian beliefs. Ladele had previously been allowed to swap duties with colleagues to avoid civil partnerships. However, after complaints from work colleagues, her employer required her to undertake the ceremonies, as they considered in not doing so she was not complying with their "dignity for all" policy, and was not providing services to all irrespective of their sexual orientation. By five votes to two the European court of human rights held that there had been no violation of Ladele's right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9 of the European convention on human rights) or of the general prohibition on discrimination (article 14). The Strasbourg court held that the UK courts had struck a fair balance when they upheld the local authority's decision. The council was pursuing a policy of non-discrimination against service users. The right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation was also protected by European law and this had been appropriately balanced against Ladele's own personal religious beliefs. There is some opposition to this decision and the dissenting judges in the case felt that the council had taken "political correctness" too far in these circumstances. However this judgment means equality of opportunity will almost always outweigh individual religious objections. It now appears that providing a non-discriminatory service will not only usually be a "legitimate aim" which employers are entitled to pursue, but also that requiring complete adherence is proportionate. Allowing an employee to avoid certain duties, in breach of an organisation's commitment not to discriminate, would fundamentally undermine this objective. This is an encouraging judgment for all local authorities committed to promoting equality. It sets the standard that requiring employees to carry out all legitimate duties as part of a zero tolerance policy towards discrimination is highly likely to be lawful in any individual case. <em>Phil Allen is employment partner at national law firm Weightmans LLP</em> <strong>This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. </strong><strong>Join the local government network</strong><strong> for analysis, best practice and the latest job vacancies direct to you</strong> |