The Reverend D Green v The Lichfield Diocesan Board of Finance — 2023

The claimant was an ordained deacon and stipendiary assistant curate in training. On the protected disclosure detriment complaints, the tribunal held that he was a "worker" for s.47B ERA purposes even though he accepted there was no contract with the respondent. It found that curates have real duties under the licence, statement of particulars, diocesan guidance and canon law, and that the claimant undertook to perform work or services personally for the respondent rather than for a client or customer.

Applying the four questions identified in Gilham v Ministry of Justice, the tribunal held that the facts fell within the ambit of Articles 14 and 10 ECHR, that the claimant was treated less favourably than employees and workers who have whistleblowing protection, that his occupational status as a stipendiary assistant curate was capable of amounting to "other status", and that there was no reasonable justification for excluding him from the statutory protection. The whistleblowing detriment claim was therefore allowed to proceed.

On the disability discrimination complaints based on a perception that the claimant was autistic, the tribunal held that he was not an employee within s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010 because he had no contract. It nevertheless held that he could pursue the complaints under s.49 as the holder of a personal office, rather than under s.39. The tribunal left for the final hearing the issue whether the respondent was the "relevant person" for the s.49 complaints.

The tribunal also dealt with a complaint under s.53 EQA about IME2 sign-off. It accepted that sign-off on IME2 was a relevant qualification because it would facilitate engagement in paid religious roles, but held that the respondent was not the qualifications body. The Bishop of Lichfield, not the DBF, was responsible for signing off curates’ training, so the s.53 claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. At the same hearing, the tribunal allowed one amendment to the direct discrimination complaints, allowed another subject to the time-limit issue, treated a third complaint as already within the claim form, and refused the amendment for the fourth complaint. Any indirect discrimination and s.55 complaints were dismissed on withdrawal. No remedy was awarded at this stage.