In Mbuyi v Newpark Childcare (Shepherds Bush) Ltd, Miss Mbuyi (M) is a devout Christian. One of M’s colleagues, LP, is a lesbian, living in a civil partnership with a woman. During a conversation between the two, LP became upset when M said her understanding of biblical teaching was that homosexuality is a sin. The employer held a disciplinary meeting with M, the main focus of which was “alleged discriminatory conduct in regard to co-workers”. M said LP had initially raised issues about her homosexuality and had asked M what she believed God thought about her living arrangements. M had replied that she believed in God and the Bible and told LP “God is not OK with what you do” and said to LP “If God is against you, God is against me as well because we are all sinners”. M further explained “I can only tell the biblical truth. I am not a homophobic person but I believe homosexuality is a sin and God doesn't like that”. The employer did not investigate M’s version of events and dismissed her for gross misconduct.

An employment tribunal decided M had been directly and indirectly discriminated against because of her religious beliefs. The employer had not treated M in the way it did because she was a Christian, but acted against her because of the way she had manifested her belief that homosexuality is a sin. Direct discrimination arose because there were a number of procedural failings in the way the disciplinary process had been handled (e.g. failing to investigate M’s explanation further, querying belief principles in situations not related to the incident, etc.) and as the employer could provide no reasonable non-discriminatory explanation for its actions, the employer’s view that M had targeted LP because of her sexuality could only have been derived from a stereotypical assumption about evangelical Christians. As for Indirect discrimination, the employer had a provision, criteria or practice (PCP) which required the delivery of services in a non-discriminatory way. This PCP particularly disadvantaged Christians whose beliefs on homosexuality were derived from the Bible and who believe that their faith requires them to express such views. However, while the PCP was legitimate, it was not proportionate to dismiss M in the circumstances because there had been procedural failings which led up to the dismissal and M had never been warned that expressing such views were unacceptable. 

In giving its judgment the tribunal made it clear that inappropriately manifesting a religious belief could, in some circumstances, be a fair reason for dismissal. But here, when asked about God’s views on two women living together, M gave an honest answer based on a deeply held religious belief – she was not wilfully imposing her belief on a colleague without being asked. This case is fact sensitive and the findings mainly arose out of procedural failure and the employer having been judged to have made stereo typical assumptions, because it could give no non-discriminatory explanation for the way it had acted. As a tribunal decision, it does not create a precedent and it certainly does not give a green light to the proposition that one right trumps another.

Content Note

The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.