Tribunal erred in religion discrimination ruling, Employment Appeal Tribunal finds
An Employment Appeal Tribunal has found that an Employment Tribunal made legal errors in its analysis of direct discrimination claims based on religious belief.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Identifies Legal Errors in Religion Discrimination Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that an Employment Tribunal erred in law when analysing certain complaints of direct discrimination based on religious belief in the case of Mr F Ngole v Touchstone Leeds.
The appeal, which focused on whether the initial Employment Tribunal had correctly assessed the claimant's complaints, saw the EAT find that certain aspects of the original decision required further consideration.
Background of the Case
The claimant, Mr F Ngole, had his conditional job offer as a discharge mental health support worker with Touchstone Leeds, a charity providing mental health and well-being services, withdrawn. Touchstone cited concerns that Mr Ngole's publicly expressed religious beliefs, particularly regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, were not aligned with the organisation's ethos and values, which include strong support for the LGBTQI+ community.
Mr Ngole argued this withdrawal constituted direct discrimination due to his religious beliefs. The original Employment Tribunal had initially found in his favour regarding the initial withdrawal of the offer but had dismissed other related claims.
Key Findings of the EAT
His Honour Judge James Tayler, delivering the EAT's judgment, concluded that while the Employment Tribunal had put in considerable effort, its reasoning had become difficult to follow. A significant issue identified was the failure to separately analyse each reason for the respondent's actions.
The EAT found that the Employment Tribunal had not sufficiently analysed whether the respondent's concerns were based on the claimant's protected beliefs themselves, or on the specific way those beliefs were manifested. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the Employment Tribunal had erred in its analysis of the concern that service users might discover news stories about Mr Ngole's past statements and react negatively. The EAT stated that this aspect of the complaint required further consideration.
Remission for Re-evaluation
Consequently, the EAT has remitted certain aspects of the case back to the Employment Tribunal. This includes the decision to require Mr Ngole to attend a second interview, and the decision not to reinstate the job offer, to the extent that these decisions were influenced by the concern about service users discovering the news stories.
The EAT stressed the importance of a detailed analysis of each reason for the employer's actions, particularly whether these reasons were truly separable from the claimant's protected beliefs.
The appeal was otherwise dismissed, with the EAT acknowledging the complexity of the legal issues involved, particularly in an area of employment law that is increasingly subject to case law development.
Read the entire judgment here: Mr F Ngole v Touchstone Leeds [2026] EAT 29
