header-logo header-logo

09 December 2013
Issue: 7588 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Sunday discrimination clarifies faith claim

Religious belief need not be a “core component of the Christian faith” to establish claim

A religious belief need not be a “core component of the Christian faith” to establish a discrimination claim as long as it is “genuinely” held, the Court of Appeal has held in its ruling on Sunday working.

Celestina Mba resigned “with regret” from her position as a care-worker at a children’s home after her employer required her to work on Sundays, which she considers a day of rest and worship. She brought proceedings alleging constructive unfair dismissal and indirect religious discrimination.

In their judgments, the employment tribunal and employment appeal tribunal said Mba’s beliefs regarding Sundays were “not a core component” of her faith.

On appeal, however, in Mba v Merton Borough [2013] EWCA Civ 1562, Lord Justice Maurice Kay said: “The use of the disjunctive—‘religion or belief’—demonstrates that it is not necessary to pitch the comparison at a macro level. 

“Thus it is not necessary to establish that all or most Christians, or all or most non-conformist Christians, are or would be put at a particular disadvantage. It is permissible to define a claimant’s religion or belief more narrowly than that. In my judgment, this is where the employment tribunal went wrong.”

Nevertheless, the Court dismissed Mba’s appeal as, on the facts, it was proportionate for her employers to require her to work on a Sunday.

Michael Powner, partner at Charles Russell, says: “The judgment will attract criticism from Christian groups who perceive that recent cases balancing the Christian faith against other protected characteristics (such as sexual orientation) have gone too far in favour of the latter. It is of course likely to be welcomed by those employers in sectors requiring cover seven days a week because if Ms Mba had been successful, the consequences would have been far reaching and could have allowed people of other religions to refuse to work on certain days of religious significance.”

 

Issue: 7588 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll