- Boston
01205 351114 - Bourne
01778 218001 - Grantham
01476 591550 - Horncastle
01507 522456 - Lincoln
01522 541181 - London
02078 715755 - Newark
01636 673731 - Sleaford
01529 411500 - Spalding
01775 725664 - Stamford
01780 764145
Was it ok to reject a job candidate whose strongly-held beliefs might upset a provider's service users
- Posted
- AuthorEd McFarlane
It depends why, says the Employment Appeal Tribunal, in yet another case where social media posts have led to a clash between freedom of expression and an employer's wish not to risk offending clients: in Ngole v Touchstone Leeds the Claimant, who held Christian beliefs including that homosexuality and same-sex marriage were sinful, applied for a job at Support Provider for mental health and well-being services, which had a track record on supporting the LGBTQI+ community, as well as faith groups. After the job was offered, a manager Googled the candidate and found news articles about social media posts expressing his beliefs which had led to him being removed from a University course and then legal proceedings. The employer withdrew the job offer and Mr Ngole brought a claim for discrimination on the ground of religion or belief. The Employment Tribunal rejected his claim, this was partially overturned on appeal. The EAT gave some guidance on where to draw the line between not employing someone because of their beliefs (unlawful) and not employing some because of a manifestation of belief, (e.g. trenchant comments on social media) (potentially lawful).
Employers need to show the distinction between taking decisions based on someone holding a belief (e.g. being a Christian), rather than its manifestation (e.g. social media posts that might upset some people), and even if it due to the manifestation of the belief, there is a balancing exercise to undertake, what was objectionable about that manifestation, and what the employer is trying to achieve by (e.g. withdrawing a job offer was proportionate and lawful, showing why limiting the right to freedom of expression should be limited, and how they were seeking to meet an objective, whether anything less intrusive could have been done and how the employer's objective (e.g. not risking upsetting a number of service users) outweighs the impact on freedom of expression, quite a few hoops to jump through for employers.
CONTACT US
If you need advice regarding this, or any other Employment Law matter, please do not hesitate to contact our Employment Law Team or make an enquiry here.
