Background:

The claimant worked as a pastoral administration/work experience manager in the respondent school.   The claimant made posts on Facebook relating to relationships education and complaints were made.    Following an investigation and disciplinary process the claimant was dismissed.  The nature of the posts related to it being no longer possible to teach according to Christian beliefs when it came to relationship education in Schools.  The basis of the respondent’s actions was that an individual reading the posts could consider them as homophobic or transphobic and that was the reason for the action rather than it relating to the claimant’s protected beliefs.

Outcome:

The EAT allowed the appeal citing that the Tribunal at first instance, which had dismissed the case, had failed to consider the core question as set out in Eweida & Others v United Kingdom (2013).   To this end, it was whether there was a close or direct nexus between the posts and the protected beliefs of the claimant.   The Tribunal did not consider the proportionality assessment to be conducted in relation to the freedom of belief and freedom of expression within Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention.  Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Tribunal to determine whether the respondent’s actions were related to the manifestation of the claimant’s beliefs or related to the manner of the manifestation.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

The balancing of rights is a troublesome area for both employers and the courts.  Here it was a difficulty for the Tribunal in determining how to deal with the collision between beliefs and expression against the beliefs of others who may be offended by the posts.   It is clear that there is a proportionality assessment to be carried out as set out here by the EAT.  It will be interesting to see how the Tribunal conducts that proportionality assessment following the guidance from the EAT.