REWARD
l a statement of written reasons for dismissal l itemised pay statements. Their compensation for discrimination included £20,000 for injury to feelings, £5,000 for aggravated damages and a 25% Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service uplift, along with past and future losses, interest and grossing up, resulting in a total sum of £93,616.74. Tribunal rules ‘psychic’ abilities do not count as a protected religious or philosophical belief In the case of Daudet v Computacenter (UK) Ltd, the ET had to consider whether the claimant’s ‘psychic’ abilities were a protected philosophical belief and, therefore, if they were discriminated against as a result. The claimant worked as a senior computer analyst for the respondent. He believed he was gifted with the psychic ability to see the future, believing where he dreamed someone was in danger, not telling them would cause him to suffer. He also had “social” dreams, which he would only discuss with those he had a close personal relationship with. The claimant was introduced to a new female colleague and sent her various messages over several months. These messages related to dreams / premonitions he had about her and about poetry and songs he had written about a woman from his dreams. He told her she was “haunting” him, that he was “trapped and stunned by the essence of her smell” and that “no one [was] as pretty as” her. He also sent a detailed email setting out how she had been on his mind for the last 11 months. The colleague complained, saying the messages made her feel uncomfortable. Following a disciplinary procedure, the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct. He brought claims for harassment, unfair dismissal and discrimination. The ET found that because his dreams did not influence his work life and had only a small impact on his personal life, they had a “very limited impact” on how he led his life. Considering this alongside the fact the belief was specifically about his own gift, they ruled that it did not satisfy the Grainger test and, therefore, was not a protected belief. The claimant argued he was harassed by being disciplined and dismissed for his
belief. The ET found that the colleague was made to feel uncomfortable, alarmed and panicked by the claimant’s comments and it was reasonable for her to feel that way. It was therefore found that the claimant had harassed the colleague. It did not find any evidence of harassment towards the claimant. The claimant argued he was dismissed for his belief in his dreams. However, he did not mention his belief in his communications with the colleague, only that he had dreams about her. The dreams about her were not the “warning” type dreams that could cause him to suffer if not passed on, but the “social type” he ordinarily only shared with close friends, which he acknowledged his colleague was not. Sharing the belief with her was therefore outside of his ordinary behaviour and not a consistent part of his belief. The ET found that the dismissal was due to the manifestation of his belief. It was argued that no reasonable employer would summarily dismiss an employee for expressing religious or philosophical beliefs, and that the dismissal was automatically unfair because the reason, or principal reason, was because he asserted a statutory right to express his religious belief in dreams / premonitions. This was rejected by the ET for the reasons set out above. “The Employment Tribunal had to consider whether the claimant’s ‘psychic’ abilities were a protected philosophical belief” Dismissal of teaching assistant for expressing views on same- sex marriage was not unfair In the case of Dybowski v The Bishop of Llandaff Church In Wales High School and Staffroom Education Ltd, the ET had to consider whether the claimant suffered discrimination as a result of expressing their religious beliefs. The claimant worked as a teaching assistant. The claimant made comments at a school training session regarding their views on same-sex marriage, abortion and
Sharia law. The headteacher intervened in the claimant’s interaction with the trainer. The headteacher met with the claimant to discuss their concerns, but the claimant turned the discussion into a debate in a similar manner as they had done with the trainer. The claimant was escorted off the premises after the meeting. The school received hate mail and threats regarding the claimant’s views. The claimant had discussed their views with pupils and staff on several occasions and was reminded of the school’s policies. Following an investigation, the claimant was dismissed by the second respondent for breaching their terms of engagement not to engage in any conduct detrimental to the interests of the client school or any other workers of the client. The claimant raised claims of harassment and direct discrimination related to their religious and protected beliefs. The tribunal found that the following beliefs were protected under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010: l a belief in biblical marriage or a lack of belief in same-sex marriage (while recognising that same-sex marriage is legal, the claimant believes that this is contrary to biblical teaching) l human life must be respected and protected from the moment of conception – abortion is gravely contrary to the moral law l a belief that sex is fixed or a lack of belief that someone can change their biological sex and / or gender and a lack of belief in gender fluidity – the belief in the Bible Genesis 1.27. The tribunal found that whilst the claimant had “a right to hold his beliefs”, they were “under the same prohibitions as the rest of society to not discriminate or harass others”. The tribunal ruled that the school was “entitled to […] exercise a degree of control over how beliefs were manifested within the school environment in accordance with the school’s values”. It was proportionate for the respondent to require the claimant to refrain from expressing their beliefs in the way that they did, both at the school and on social media, to safeguard the first respondent’s values and responsibilities to the children at the school. The claims were dismissed and the tribunal held that the claimant did not suffer from discrimination on the grounds of their beliefs. n
41
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward |
Issue 110 | May 2025
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker