Asher’s Bakery and Direct Discrimination 11 October 2018
The UK's highest court ruled that Ashers bakery's refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.
The Christian owners of a Northern Ireland bakery have won their appeal in the so-called "gay cake" discrimination case.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett's Employment Law Bulletin for the following coverage of Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and Others.
Ashers Baking is a family-owned business. Its owners are religious Christians. Mr Lee asked them to bake a cake with a photo of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street and the wording 'Support Gay Marriage'. They declined to bake it due to their religious beliefs.
Mr Lee brought a discrimination claim through the Northern Irish courts and succeeded at first instance and before the Northern Irish Court of Appeal. However, the Supreme Court overruled those decisions.
It looked at direct discrimination on grounds of both sexual orientation and political belief.
The bakers' refusal was not because of Mr Lee's sexual orientation: that was irrelevant to their decision. It was thus not direct discrimination in the ordinary sense. The Supreme Court was also not satisfied that this was associative direct discrimination, i.e. because Mr Lee was likely to associate with the gay community. For associative discrimination to succeed there needed to be an association with particular persons and discrimination due to that association. That was absent in this case. That the message had something to do with sexual orientation of some people was not sufficient to make out the claim. Moving on to political belief, the Court relied heavily on the rights relating to religion and expression under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights . Those rights include an entitlement not to be forced to express political opinion in which you do not believe. Infringement of those rights could not be justified by an obligation to supply a cake iced with a message with which the bakers profoundly disagreed.
Back to Contents
Impromptu events could lead to a finding of vicarious liability 19 October 2018
An appeal tribunal has found that, given the right circumstances, an employer can potentially be held vicariously liable for injury caused at an impromptu work after party.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Update for this summary which provides the outcome of a recent ruling by the Court of Appeal in Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Limited.
Mr Bellman was a sales manager for the Respondent recruitment firm. Mr Major was the firm’s managing director. A Christmas party was organised. At its end, Mr Major arranged taxis to transport staff to a hotel where they continued drinking, with drinks mainly paid for by the company. After a couple of hours, an argument broke out about a new employee’s placement and terms. Mr Major got cross and summoned staff to give them a long lecture on his authority. When Mr Bellman questioned Mr Major's decisions, he (Major) punched him (Bellman), causing brain damage. The court was asked to decide whether the company was vicariously liable for Mr Major’s actions. The judge at first instance held not, but the Court of Appeal disagreed. Two key matters needed to be considered: (i) the nature of the employee’s job – to be construed broadly and objectively, and (ii) whether there was sufficient connection between his
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 104 of 598
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker