Court of Appeal considered case of Christian registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships
The case of a Christian registrar, who claims she was discriminated against by her council employers, was heard in the Court of Appeal on 2 and 3 November 2009.The case of a Christian registrar, who claims she was discriminated against by her council employers for refusing to conduct homosexual civil partnerships as a matter of religious conscience, was heard in the Court of Appeal on 2 and 3 November 2009.
Lillian Ladele, 48, sought to challenge a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which rejected her claim that her employer, Islington City Council, had subjected her to unlawful direct and indirect discrimination on religious grounds after she refused to serve as registrar in carrying out homosexual civil partnerships.
Ms Ladele, who had held her job for almost 16 years, claims she suffered ridicule and bullying as a result of her Christian stance and said she had been harassed and discriminated against by the council. She had been employed by Islington since 1992, and became a registrar in November 2002 dealing with births, marriages and deaths.
James Dingemans QC, for Ms Ladele, told a panel of three appeal judges that Islington Council mistook their obligation for compliance with the Dignity For All policy in failing to accommodate its employee when it was possible to do so. When two homosexuals working at the council complained about ‘discrimination’ against them, their complaint was dealt with very quickly. In contrast, when Ms Ladele made the complaint, no one dealt with it. The council saw her belief and committed views about marriage as a problem, Mr Dingemans told the Court.
Mr Dingemans said there was evidence that the reason for the disciplinary action was that Islington Council found his client's views and principles unacceptable. He said that the council indicated to Ms Ladele that her right to practise the Christian faith, which had been protected for millennia, should be kept private and should not interfere with society.
Helen Mountfield, for Islington Council, was asked by Lady Justice Smith whether there is a provision that the right of homosexual people trumps religious rights. Ms Mountfield said ‘no’, but added that there is indeed a strong emphasis on same-sex rights. ‘So, there is a trump?’, the Judge asked. Ms Mountfield went on explaining a ‘structural way’ to manage rights under the Sexual Orientations Regulations 2003 and why it is the only appropriate structure to deal with these conflicting rights.
Karon Monaghan QC, for Liberty who intervened in the case, said that accommodating Ms Ladele’s belief in the workplace would mean allowing ‘a bit’ of discrimination, and therefore, promoting ‘its totality, which will undermine the whole purpose of non-discrimination and dignity for others’.
She compared such accommodation to a woman sitting on the bus seat who is asked to go to the back seat. ‘She can easily comply and go, but it will not promote the dignity of the woman,’ she said. In the same way, Ms Monaghan said, accommodation of Ms Ladele’s belief would promote the ‘parasitic claims of homophobic people’.
Ms Monaghan, who is Female Director for Europe at the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association, also referred to a recent appearance of ‘homophobic’ Nick Griffin on the BBC’s Question Time.
She concluded by referring to a draft European Equal Treatment Directive, which aims ‘to remove discrimination outside of employment’, agreed by the EU Commission. She said that the Court has to take the draft Directive into account.
(Click here to see CCFON Action Pack on the directive)
In July 2008, an Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of Ms Ladele. The tribunal found that the Islington Council showed no respect for Ms Ladele’s rights by virtue of her orthodox Christian beliefs.
At the time, the tribunal decided that homosexual rights should not be allowed to ‘trump’ the rights of those with religious beliefs and said that the council’s other registrars were able to provide a ‘first-class’ service to same-sex couples without Ms Ladele’s involvement. The tribunal’s ruling said that Islington council ‘placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief’.
But in December 2008 the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the decision and ruled that the council was entitled to require all registrars to perform the full range of services.
The case is supported by the Christian Institute. Mike Judge, the Institute’s spokesman, said:
‘Islington Council accepts it was able to provide civil partnerships registrations without forcing Lillian to take part. They could therefore have reasonably accommodated Miss Ladele’s genuinely held religious belief without affecting service delivery.
‘That would have been a balanced approach which respected both sides of the debate. Instead they chose to make gay rights more important than religious rights. If this decision is allowed to stand it will help squeeze out Christians from the public sphere because of their religious beliefs on ethical issues,’ he added.
Peter Tatchell, a homosexual rights activist, said:
‘This case is part of a homophobic fight-back by Christian fundamentalists who resent the removal in law of their right to discriminate against lesbian and gay people.’
The decision of the Court of Appeal is expected before Christmas.
Media links
