UK: Direct Discrimination: Religion and Belief

Authors: Robert Hill and Charlotte Stern 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has examined how employers should deal with the expression of a belief by an employee, which clashes with the employer organisation’s purpose or aims.

The recent case of Ngole v Touchstone Leeds highlights that a) employers cannot reject job applicants simply for holding protected beliefs they disagree with and b) that the manifestation of those beliefs and the impact of that on the employer can, in very fact specific and limited circumstances, be used to justify what would otherwise be a discriminatory dismissal.

Touchstone, a mental health charity with a strong LGBTQI+ focus, advertised for a discharge mental health support worker. Mr Ngole, a Christian applicant, disclosed his religion and interviewed well, receiving a conditional offer. When his references were weaker than expected, Touchstone carried out an online search and found media reports of his earlier dispute with Sheffield University, which had arisen from social media posts stating views such as “same sex marriage is a sin”.

Senior management felt these views conflicted with the charity’s ethos and withdrew the offer, concerned he might discriminate against LGBTQI+ service users or create reputational risk. Mr Ngole brought claims of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment. He succeeded only in arguing that the initial withdrawal of the job offer – without a chance to reassure the employer – was direct discrimination. His other direct discrimination claims (over a second interview and failing to reinstate the job offer) and his harassment claim were dismissed. He appealed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found legal errors in how the Tribunal approached the refusal to reinstate the job offer and sent that issue back for reconsideration. The key question will be whether Touchstone acted because of Mr Ngole’s protected beliefs (unlawful), or because of an inappropriate manifestation of those beliefs (potentially lawful, depending on the facts) and will require a more thorough factual analysis of why Touchstone reached its decision.

Practical point

The case illustrates how difficult it can be for organisations to balance a conflict in protected beliefs.  We recommend that employers:

• Ensure recruitment decisions assess skills and values fairly and consistently.
• Do not base recruitment and employment decisions on a protected belief.
• Distinguish carefully between the belief and the manner of its expression (and how that will impact on others).
• Investigate thoroughly, seek the applicant’s input and keep records of their reasoning and how decisions have been made.

 

Ngole v Touchstone Leeds Mr_F_Ngole_v_Touchstone_Leeds__2026__EAT_29.pdf