Mr Philips (counsel) For the v Mr Peacock (solicitor) — 2022

The claimant, Rev. Keith Walters, was a Christian minister and also worked as a caretaker at the Isle of Ely Primary School. After he posted a tweet on 1 June 2019 about Christians not supporting Pride month events, the School received formal complaints and opened an investigation under its social media, code of conduct and equal opportunities policies. The tribunal found there was no leak of confidential information to the wider school community and that the decision to remove him temporarily from gate duties was a risk assessment meant to avoid suspension while the allegations were investigated. He resigned on 24 June 2019, before the disciplinary process ended, and the Trust later issued a final written warning on 23 July 2019.

The tribunal accepted that Christianity and the particular beliefs relied on by the claimant were capable of protection under the Equality Act 2010, applying the Grainger and Forstater approach. It dismissed the direct discrimination claim, however, because the investigation, the extension of the investigation to the church website/social media, the decision that there was a case to answer, and the final written warning were found to have been triggered by the tweet and the complaints, not because of religion or belief. The tribunal also rejected the constructive unfair dismissal claim under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996, finding there was no repudiatory breach of trust and confidence, no dismissal at law, and therefore no dismissal-based discrimination claim.

On indirect discrimination, the tribunal held that the school's interpretation and application of its social media, code of conduct and equal opportunities policies, together with the practice of giving substantial weight to third-party complaints, were PCPs. It found those PCPs put evangelical Christian ministers sharing the claimant's beliefs at a particular disadvantage and did disadvantage the claimant when he received the final written warning on 23 July 2019. The tribunal accepted that investigating the complaints and holding a disciplinary hearing were proportionate steps, but concluded that issuing the final written warning was not a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims relied on, so the indirect discrimination claim was upheld and remedy was left for a later hearing.