In Ngole v Touchstone Leeds [2026] EAT 29, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employment tribunal had erred by failing to properly determine whether the respondent charity’s treatment of a Christian job applicant was because of his protected beliefs, or because of the way those beliefs were perceived to have been manifested.
The claimant, a practising Christian, had previously made Facebook posts describing homosexuality and same-sex marriage as a sin. These posts had led to his removal from a university social work course and subsequent court proceedings. The respondent charity, which provides mental health support services to a large number of LGBTQI+ service users, became aware of these matters through media coverage and withdrew a conditional job offer due to concerns about the potential impact on its service users.
At first instance, the tribunal held that the withdrawal of the job offer amounted to direct discrimination. However, it rejected the claimant’s remaining direct discrimination complaints, finding that it was not discriminatory for the charity to require him to attend a second interview to provide assurances about how his beliefs would affect his work, nor to refuse to reinstate the job offer thereafter.
On appeal, the EAT held that the tribunal had failed to adopt the correct structured approach. In relation to each alleged act of discrimination, the tribunal was required to identify the precise reason for the respondent’s conduct and analyse that reason separately. It had failed to determine what, specifically, the respondent believed its service users might find objectionable about the claimant’s Facebook posts, and whether any objectionable element was severable from the claimant’s protected beliefs themselves.
The EAT observed that it appeared likely that any concern would stem from the discovery that the claimant held beliefs that homosexuality and same-sex marriage were a sin. While acknowledging that such beliefs may be found upsetting or objectionable by some, the respondent accepted that they constituted protected beliefs. If the respondent’s actions were taken merely because service users might be upset by the claimant holding those beliefs, this would amount to direct discrimination, which is not capable of justification.
Further, the tribunal had failed to properly assess whether the respondent’s treatment of the claimant, particularly following the second interview, could be justified as a proportionate response, applying the structured proportionality test set out in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39. The EAT allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the tribunal for reconsideration.
Mr F Ngole v Touchstone Leeds : [2026] EAT 29.
