Showing posts with label Britain Employment Appeal Tribunal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Britain Employment Appeal Tribunal. Show all posts

Thursday, June 30, 2022

Britain's Employment Appeals Tribunal Rules Against Doctor Who Refused To Use Preferred Pronouns For Transgender Individuals

In Mackereth v. Department for Work and Pensions, (EAT, June 29, 2022), Britain's Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected a Christian doctor's claim that the policy of his government agency employer requiring him, as a disability benefits assessor, to refer to transgender claimants by their preferred pronoun amounted to illegal discrimination and harassment. While disagreeing with some of the conclusions of the Employment Tribunal (ET) below, the 61-page opinion which turns on doctrines developed under Britain's Equality Act, accepts the ultimate conclusion of the ET.  The Appellate decision is summarized by an article in Personnel Today which says in part:

Mackereth’s beliefs are based on what the bible says in Genesis 1:27; that we are born male and female and that a person cannot change their sex or gender. This belief conflicted with DWP’s policies....

...[T]he EAT ruled that Mackereth’s belief is protected under the Equality Act and Human Rights Act. Nevertheless, the judgment notes his belief could be deemed offensive....

... Justice Eady stated that the employment tribunal had properly taken account of the context in which Mackereth had expressed his beliefs and had carefully evaluated DWP’s concerns with them being expressed in his role.

The judgment says: “Given the particular context, it could not be said that the ET had erred in finding the measures adopted by the respondents were necessary and proportionate to meet a legitimate focus on the needs of potentially vulnerable service users, and on the risks to those individuals and, in consequence, to the respondents.

Monday, April 11, 2016

British Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Warning To Proselytizing Supervisor

In Wasteney v. East London NHS Foundation Trust, (UK EAT, April 7, 2016), the British Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected a religious discrimination claim brought by the Head of Forensic Occupational Therapy at a public sector mental health clinic who described herself as a born again Christian.  She was issued a written warning for proselytizing a young Pakistani Muslim occupational therapist whom she supervised.  She gave the Muslim woman a book about another Muslim Pakistani woman who had converted to Christianity; during a one-on-one meeting prayed for the Muslim woman by laying hands on her; and invited the Muslim woman to various Christian church events. In upholding the finding of the Employment Tribunal (ET), the EAT said in part:
The ET did not find that the Respondent had pursued disciplinary action against the Claimant and imposed a warning on her because of or for reasons related to her sharing of her faith with a consenting colleague.  It expressly found that the Respondent took the actions it did because the colleague in question had made serious complaints about acts which blurred professional boundaries and placed improper pressure on that colleague.
Christian Post reporting on the decision quotes this reaction from the supervisor who lost her appeal:
I believe the NHS singled me out for discipline because Christianity is so disrespected. Previously a Christian worship service that I set up for patients was closed down, but accommodation for Muslims to practice their faith wholly facilitated and encouraged.

Friday, November 29, 2013

British Employment Appeal Tribunal Remands Unfair Dismissal Claim By Church of England Rector

In Sharpe v The Worcester Diocesan Board Of Finance Ltd., (UK EAT, Nov. 28, 2013), Britain's Employment Appeal Tribunal remanded for further consideration an appeal by an ordained minister in the Church of England who argued that his service as a Rector is covered by the  Employment Rights Act 1996.  Petitioner claimed that he had suffered detrimental treatment and was constructively and unfairly dismissed as a result of his making protected disclosures.  The Appeals Tribunal held that the UK Supreme Court  decision earlier this year in President of the Methodist Conference v. Preston, (UK Sup. Ct., May 15, 2013), requires a focus on "whether there was an express contract between the Claimant and the Bishop, having regard to the rules and practices of the Church and the particular arrangements made with the Claimant." Explaining the Preston holding that a Methodist minister is not covered by the Employment Rights Act, the Appeal Tribunal said in part:
For a number of reasons... the rights and duties of ministers in the Methodist Church were found to arise entirely from their status in the constitution of the Church, and not from any contract.....
Law & Religion UK blog also has  coverage of the decision.