header-logo header-logo

Sunday discrimination clarifies faith claim

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

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

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll