The background to this case was that complaints had been made by a junior worker of Muslim faith against the Claimant, a more senior manager position who was a Christian. The complaints related to various interactions with the Claimant which the complainant characterised as “grooming”; these included the Claimant’s praying with the junior worker and the laying on of hands, giving a book to that worker, which concerned the conversion to Christianity of a Muslim woman, and inviting her to various services and events at the Claimant’s Church. 

The Respondent employer had investigated the complaints under its disciplinary procedure and had found the Claimant guilty of serious misconduct, namely the blurring of professional boundaries and the subjection of a junior colleague to improper pressure and unwanted conduct. The Claimant was given a final written warning, reduced on appeal to a first written warning. She took a claim of discrimination on grounds of her religious belief, which the original employment tribunal rejected.

The EAT has also rejected the Claimant's case. It found that the incidents were not consensual - the behaviour of the Claimant was unwanted by the subordinate. Further, the Claimant had no regard to the position of power she was in or influence she had over the subordinate employee. The EAT found the tribunal was correct to identify these as the key reasons why the employer took action against the Claimant and not because of her Christian beliefs. 

There was another interesting angle to this case. The Claimant argued that the employer discriminated against her by pursuing the disciplinary path, rather than mediation under the Dignity at Work policy. This argument was also rejected by the tribunal and the EAT - the conditions identified as making that “particularly appropriate” had not existed at the relevant time i.e. the subordinate employee had left, and there was therefore no on-going relationship, and he had described considerable distress and characterised the treatment as “grooming”. The tribunal had also noted in its original findings that the Claimant had previously been counselled about what was appropriate behaviour in the workplace.
http://bit.ly/1Yv3IxX