Mr A Edwards v Cliff College — 2024

Mr A Edwards, a Programme Lead at Cliff College, posted a Tweet on 19 February 2023 about homosexuality and Evangelicals. The tribunal found that the post generated a large volume of complaints and criticism, including concerns from students, the Methodist Church, and the University of Manchester. Cliff College asked him to remove the Tweet, suspended him on full pay, investigated the matter, held a disciplinary hearing on 8 March 2023, and dismissed him. The appeal was rejected on 27 March 2023.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason: the Tweet bringing or likely to bring the college into disrepute and significantly breaching trust and confidence. It held that the respondent had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal referred to section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell test, and concluded that the respondent acted reasonably in the circumstances.

On harassment, the tribunal considered each of the pleaded acts, including the respondent's own Tweet, the request to remove the claimant's Tweet, suspension, investigation, emails to students, appointment of the investigator, the investigation report, the disciplinary meeting, dismissal, and appeal outcome. It found that these steps were responses to the language used, the complaints received, and the reputational and operational concerns caused by the Tweet, rather than conduct related to religion or belief. It also found that the conduct did not have the purpose or effect required by section 26 Equality Act 2010.

On direct discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's evangelical Christian belief was protected under section 10 Equality Act 2010 and that the relevant comparator would be another staff member posting a controversial Tweet that generated the same reaction and risk. It found that the claimant was not treated less favourably because of religion or belief, but because of the language used and the reputational damage caused. On indirect discrimination, the tribunal found that the pleaded PCPs were not established or applied; it identified the relevant requirement as compliance with the Social Media Policy and held that, if any PCP had existed, it would have been a proportionate means of protecting the college's reputation and ensuring dignity and respect. The tribunal also considered Articles 9 and 10 ECHR and applied the Bank Mellat proportionality analysis, concluding that the respondent's actions were proportionate.