Miss Ladele refused, on grounds of conscience, to perform civil partnership ceremonies when Islington Council designated all its existing registrars as civil partnership arrangement registrars. This ultimately led to a disciplinary hearing alleging failure to comply with the council's equality and diversity policy by refusing to carry out work solely on the grounds of sexual orientation of customers. Ladele subsequently brought a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. The tribunal concluded that she had suffered direct and indirect discrimination and harassment on grounds of religion or belief. She had demonstrated that she had suffered a number of detriments (contrary to Regulation 10(3)), which the tribunal was able to view cumulatively and conclude that there was direct discrimination on grounds of her Christian faith. The requirement that all registrars should carry out civil partnership ceremonies and registration duties constituted indirect discrimination, since this put individuals who held orthodox Christian beliefs about marriage at a disadvantage and actually disadvantaged Miss Ladele, and the council had failed to show that this was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The council's refusal to take her views seriously, the allegations that she was discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation and was displaying homophobia, and the fact that she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings constituted harassment. The tribunal noted that the case involved ‘a direct conflict between the legislative protection afforded to religion or belief and the legislative protection afforded to sexual orientation’. The tribunal stated that ‘Both sets of rights are protected. One set of rights cannot override the other set of rights.’ In protecting the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community, the council had ignored Miss Ladele's rights in respect of her orthodox Christian beliefs.

This case note was supplied by Frank Cranmer and Russell Sandberg. A fuller version appeared in Law and Justice and is reproduced with permission.