Britain's Appeals Court: Christian Social Work Student Improperly Suspended For Anti-Gay Facebook Postings

In Ngole v. University of Sheffield, (EWCA, July 3, 2019), England's Court of Appeal held that the University of Sheffield had unfairly removed a Christian student from its Master of Social Work program after the student posted his views on Facebook that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are sins.  The postings, in response to the jailing in 2015 of Kentucky court clerk Kim Davis for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, appeared on MSNBC's Facebook page. The Court, ordering a new disciplinary hearing by the University, summarized its conclusions in part as follows:

(10) The University wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination. The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that ‘homosexuality is a sin’) does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds. In the present case, there was positive evidence to suggest that the Appellant had never discriminated on such grounds in the past and was not likely to do so in the future (because, as he explained, the Bible prohibited him from discriminating against anybody).

(11) The University gave different and confusing reasons for suspending the Appellant. Initially, it was said (by the Fitness to Practice Committee) that he lacked “insight” into how his NBC postings might affect his ability to carry out “his role as a social worker”; and subsequently it was said (by the Appeals Committee) that he lacked “insight” into how his NBC postings “may negatively affect the public’s view of the social work profession”. Further, at no stage during the process or the hearings did the University properly put either concern as to perception to the Appellant during the hearings.

(12) The University’s approach to sanction was, in any event, disproportionate: instead of exploring and imposing a lesser penalty, such as a warning, the University imposed the extreme penalty of dismissing the Appellant from his course, which was inappropriate in all the circumstances.

The Guardian reports on the decision.