|
|
 |
| |
Lillian Ladele |
GAY WEDDING RULING BASED ON AN 'ERROR'
‘Fundamental‘ confusion behind tribunal backing for registrar
A TRIBUNAL ruling in favour of Christian registrar Lillian Ladele who refused to “marry” gays was based on a “fundamental error”, an eminent employment law judge said this week.
Justice Sir Patrick Elias, President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, criticised the judgement in support of Ms Ladele, who was threatened with the sack by the Town Hall because of her refusal to take part in civil partnership ceremonies. The 47-year-old believes gay couples are “sinners”.
Ms Ladele, from Skinner Street, Finsbury, is in line for thousands of pounds of damages if the landmark ruling is upheld.
Islington Council appealed against the decision in her favour, arguing that its strict employment code meant staff could not hold discriminatory views based on sexual preference and that Ms Ladele was not fulfilling her job description.
Justice Elias, chairman of a panel of three appeal justices, told the appeal tribunal on Wednesday: “Let’s say I am an anarchist and I feel strongly that I want to go around blowing things up, but my employers object. It may well be that anarchy is my genuinely held belief. But it does not mean that my employer’s decision not to allow me to is discriminating against that belief.” The fundamental problem with the tribunal’s judgement was that the reason for her treatment was not properly addressed, he said.
“Nowhere does the tribunal say: Let’s analyse whether the reason for her disciplinary hearing was her religious belief,” said Justice Elias. “The council say the reason was that she refused to carry out civil partnerships.
“This is a fundamental error to confuse unreasonable behaviour and discriminatory behaviour. I am not sure the tribunal appreciated that.”
He added: “So often employers get things badly wrong. In this case in Islington, I would say that argument could probably be sustained. But getting things wrong is not the same as discrimination.”
Ms Ladele’s barrister John Dinghams, QC, looked stunned by the judge’s remarks. He told him: “If you are not with me on the direct discrimination claim then I would ask we return for another tribunal.”
If the original judgement is thrown out following the council’s appeal the case could go to a third hearing.
Neither side is prepared to back down in a case of crucial importance to councils and Christians throughout the country.
The council replaced its original tribunal barrister, John Lynch, with employment law specialist Helen Mountfield, a colleague of Cherie Booth, wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, at Bayswater-based Matrix Chambers.
She said: “Employing someone who discriminates against someone on grounds of sexual orientation sends an unacceptable message. This is a case of considerable wider importance and we believe the tribunal has misapplied the law.”
She said if the appeal was thrown out it would allow religion to become a “trump card” and outweigh other employment equality rights.
“What if I go into a job interview and the employer will not employ me because he says it is his strongly held religious belief that a woman’s place is in the home?” she said.
Mr Dinghams, a leading QC whose services are being funded by religious lobby group the Christian Institute, told the tribunal: “Other local authorities have allowed their registrars to be excused from civil partnerships.
“Miss Ladele has served the council since 1992, covering births, marriages and deaths. But now she is being told to get off to her flat because of her shameful and bizarre beliefs that cannot be accommodated by the council. She is being told she simply cannot exist. They have decided that Miss Ladele’s religious beliefs cannot be tolerated.”
He added: “We can only speculate on the effect this will have on other registrars up and down the country – they are the ones that are next in line.”
Justice Elias said a judgement on the appeal was expected some time around Christmas.
The judge, who has made the Ladele case his last in the Employment Appeal Court, received an emotional send-off from 50 employment lawyers packed into Court 3 in Audit House on the Embankment before the hearing on Wednesday morning.
Described as “the Pele of employment law”, he received a minute-long ovation from lawyers. |
 |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
