Home | News & events | Legal updates | Christian registrar loses civil partnerships fight

Christian registrar loses civil partnerships fight

22 December 2009

The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by the Christian registrar who claimed being forced by her employer to officiate at civil partnerships ceremonies was religious discrimination.

This case has previously attracted significant media coverage, as it was the first time the higher Courts had been asked to consider the potential conflict between the requirements of the UK’s sexual orientation equality law and its religious equality law (both of which came into force in 2003).

The Court of Appeal declined to overturn the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision that Ms Ladele had not been directly or indirectly discriminated against or harassed by her employer, Islington Borough Council, on the grounds of her religion when it began disciplinary action against her for objecting to carrying out same sex civil partnership ceremonies. As a Christian she believed marriage was the union of one man and one woman.

The Court of Appeal approved of the guidance given by the EAT as to how such cases should be approached:

there was no direct discrimination in this case: the Council’s actions were not motivated by its disapproval of Ms Ladele’s Christian beliefs but by the manifestation of those beliefs i.e. her refusal to carry out civil partnership ceremonies.
the Court of Appeal agreed with the EAT on the question of the correct comparator. This was another registrar who refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies because of antipathy to same sex relationships but this was not connected to or based on religious belief. Such a comparator would have been treated in the same way as Ms Ladele was the Council.
as regards indirect discrimination, the Court of Appeal accepted that the Council’s policy of requiring all its registrars to carry out civil partnership ceremonies put people such as the claimant at a disadvantage when compared with those who did not share her beliefs about same sex unions.
however, it was satisfied that this policy was a “proportionate means of a achieving a legitimate aim” and therefore not unlawful. As a public body the Council had an equality policy under which it committed to providing public services “in a way which does not discriminate against others”. This was held by both the EAT and Court of Appeal to be an entirely legitimate aim, in light of “current legislation and mainstream thinking”.
on the issue of proportionality, the Court of Appeal held that Ms Ladele was working for a public authority in a public job, she was being asked to perform a secular task. Her refusal to perform that task involved her discriminating against gay people and caused offence to her gay colleagues. Islington’s requirements in no way prevented her from worshipping as she wished and remaining free to hold her religious beliefs.
finally, and controversially, the Court of Appeal accepted that Islington Council had no alternative but to act in the way it did because the sexual orientation regulations make it unlawful for any public authority to exercise their functions in a way which constitutes discrimination. Had they allowed Ms Ladele not to officiate at civil ceremonies the Council would have been vicariously liable for what was regarded by the Court as her own act of discrimination
this means that in the public sphere at least the prohibition against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation now effectively takes precedence over any right which a person would otherwise have by virtue of their faith to practice discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

News & events

Latest news

Christian registrar loses civil partnerships fight

22 December 2009

The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by the Christian registrar who claimed being forced by her employer to officiate at civil partnerships ceremonies was religious discrimination.

Search the site

Get in touch

Tina Attenborough

better value | best answers | less hassle

Sitemap | Accessibility © Shoosmiths | Terms of use & privacy | Complaints