Registrar refusing to conduct civil partnerships suffered no discrimination
Ms Ladele is a practising Christian. She worked as a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Islington Council. Ms Ladele refused to carry out civil partnership registration ceremonies on the ground that same-sex partnerships are “contrary to God’s law”. She refused an offer to be excused from civil partnership ceremonies as long as she carried out other aspects of civil partnership administration and was threatened with dismissal.
A tribunal found that Ms Ladele had suffered direct and indirect discrimination and harassment by reason of her religious belief. In doing so the Council had placed greater value on protecting the rights of the gay community than her religious objections to civil partnerships. The EAT upheld the Council’s appeal on all grounds on the basis that the tribunal’s reasoning disclosed fundamental errors of law. They had fallen into the trap of confusing the Council’s reasons for treating Ms Ladele as it did, with Ms Ladele’s reasons for acting as she did.
The Council had applied the same rule to all registrars – i.e. that they should carry out both civil partnerships and marriages. Ms Ladele was not treated differently from anyone else. The reason she was threatened with dismissal was because she refused to carry out a legitimate request arising from Council policy and anyone else would have treated the same way. While the Council may in some instances have acted unsatisfactorily or unreasonably, the ‘reason’ for her treatment had nothing to do with her religious belief.
With regard to indirect discrimination, the Council’s practice of requiring all registrars to perform civil partnership functions did have the effect of placing those of Ms Ladele’s religious belief at a particular disadvantage. But the Council had been perfectly justified in insisting that all its registrars perform a service allowed for and prescribed by law. Ms Ladele could not pick and choose what duties she wanted to perform depending on her religious views, particularly when her views involved discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. 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, we 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.
