Cases3309325/2023

Claimant v St Anne's Catholic High School for Girls

5 March 2025Before Employment Judge Sarah MatthewsWatfordin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Breach of Contractfailed

Tribunal found claimant was a worker, not an employee. Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear breach of contract claims for workers. Even if claimant had been an employee, no notice period was implied: she was paid by the day, covering temporary absence, and maximum flexibility intended for the permanent postholder to return. No written or verbal term to imply notice.

Direct Discrimination(religion)failed

Tribunal found the respondent's reason for termination was not the claimant's belief but the objectionable manner of manifestation: the KOML video objectively advocated coercive control. The interference with the claimant's Article 9 right was prescribed by law and proportionate: the objective was safeguarding vulnerable 14-year-old girls entitled to pastoral support free from gender stereotyping and misogyny, and the claimant's lack of insight undermined her pastoral role. Less intrusive measures (making account private, removing post) had been tried. Balance favoured the students.

Indirect Discrimination(religion)failed

Tribunal found the PCP (not being publicly associated with posts incompatible with school ethos or undermining public confidence in worker in position of trust) did not put those with claimant's beliefs at particular disadvantage: virtually anyone may hold controversial views. In any event, the PCP was justified: legitimate aim to protect vulnerable students from misogyny and gender stereotyping; PCP was necessary to ensure staff aligned with school's teaching of equity, equality, tolerance. Proportionate.

Harassment(religion)failed

Comments on 9 February (that video would be misogynistic if man said same) were reasonable observations inviting discussion, not harassment. Request to make accounts private or remove KOML post did not have proscribed effect or create intimidating environment. Claimant was not given 24-hour ultimatum; no criticism of claimant's actual beliefs occurred; expressing reasonable opinion not harassment. Effect on claimant (upset at final meeting) was due to job loss not the conduct itself. Conduct did not meet threshold for harassment.

Facts

Claimant was a Pastoral Manager for 14-15 year old girls at a Catholic school on a short-term contract covering sickness absence. She had public social media accounts with large following promoting complementarianism Christian beliefs in traditional marriage and hierarchy within marriage. A video posted (KOML) appeared to students and parents to advocate wives submitting entirely to husbands. School asked claimant to make accounts private or remove post; claimant removed post from one account only. School terminated contract citing incompatibility with school ethos.

Decision

Tribunal found claimant was a limb(b) worker not an employee so no jurisdiction for notice pay claim. All discrimination claims failed. Respondent's actions were not because of claimant's beliefs but the objectionable manner of manifestation: KOML video objectively advocated coercive control. Interference with Article 9/10 rights was proportionate to protect vulnerable students entitled to pastoral support. School's PCP was justified by legitimate aim of safeguarding students from misogyny and gender stereotyping.

Practical note

When an employer objects to a manifestation of belief, the tribunal will distinguish between objecting to the belief itself (discrimination) and objecting to the inappropriate manner of manifestation (potentially justified interference with Article 9/10 rights), applying a proportionality test balancing employee's freedom of expression against employer's duty to safeguard vulnerable service users.

Legal authorities cited

Eweida and others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 37Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337Professional Game Match Officials Ltd [2024] UKSCR v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 1Hardys & Hansons plc v Lax [2005] IRLRAutoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2QB 497Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700Page v NHS Trust Development Authority [2021] EWCA Civ 255Higgs v Farmor's School [2023] ICR 1072

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.19Equality Act 2010 s.10Equality Act 2010 s.13ECHR Article 10ECHR Article 9Human Rights Act 1998 s.3ERA 1996 s.230Equality Act 2010 s.212Equality Act 2010 s.83Equality Act 2010 s.26

Case details

Case number
3309325/2023
Decision date
5 March 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
education
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Pastoral Manager
Service
6 months

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor