Case law update (February 2025): Dismissals, religious beliefs & racial harassment

Our employment law & business immigration experts delve into some recent case law that could prove relevant to you and your business.

In our February edition of Dispatches, we look into the following case law:

• Taylor v Metroline: Disciplinary procedures & dismissals
• Higgs v Farmor’s School: Religious beliefs
• Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire: Racial harassment & accents
• Eddie Stobart Limited v Graham: Unfair dismissal

_______________

Case 1 – Taylor v Metroline: Disciplinary procedures & dismissals

Mr Taylor was a bus driver employed by Metroline. A complaint was made after a physical altercation broke out regarding parking arrangements between Mr Taylor and another bus driver employed by a different company. As a result, Mr Taylor was summarily dismissed by Metroline, with Mr Taylor consequently lodging a claim for unfair dismissal.

The employment tribunal (ET) held that view, despite Mr Taylor being dismissed on the basis of Metroline’s genuine belief of gross misconduct. The dismissal was unfair due to issues with the evidence used in the process, and how the treatment of this dismissal process compared to a previous incident of a similar nature. Metroline appealed.

The employment appeal tribunal (EAT) upheld the appeal on the basis that the ET had used its own views instead of the views of Metroline.

The EAT set out that the ET should have:

• considered whether Metroline’s failure to request additional evidence was within the remit of reasonable responses available
• considered whether errors made by Metroline during the disciplinary process was within the remit of reasonable responses available
• not used the treatment of an incident, by Metroline, of a similar nature to determine the outcome of the hearing.

What should you do?

As an employer it is important that you have a coherent disciplinary policy in place to ensure that there is consistency in how managers deal with these situations as and when they arise. It’s also useful to ensure that you have a paper trail of any investigations that you do carry out as this could be utilised as evidence of fairness in treatment if ever you had to give evidence at a tribunal.

_______________

Case 2 – Higgs v Farmor’s School: Religious beliefs

Ms Higgs – a Christian who was employed as a counsellor by Farmor’s school (“the school”) – was dismissed for gross misconduct due to reposts she had made on her personal Facebook. Amongst other things, these posts criticised the teaching of sex education in relation to transgender topics in primary schools.

As a result of Ms Higgs’ conduct, the school believed that they may suffer reputational damage, and therefore dismissed Ms Higgs for gross misconduct.

Subsequently, Ms Higgs brought claims for discrimination on grounds of religious belief on the basis that a person cannot change their biological sex, and a belief that marriage is an event exclusive to men and women.

The court of appeal found in favour of Ms Higgs on the basis that:

• Ms Higgs’ views in relation to transgender beliefs and marriage amounted to protected beliefs under the Equality Act 2010 (using the test established in Forstater v GCD Europe)
• dismissing an employee who expresses a religious or protected belief, even if it is different to that of the organisation, in order to avoid potential reputational damage will amount to unlawful direct discrimination, unless it is objectively justified – this was not possible here
• Ms Higgs had not discriminated against any of her pupils or anyone else at the school, and the school confirmed they did not think she would do so
• the posts may have been objectionable, but they were not grossly offensive.

Therefore, it was held that her dismissal was not a justifiable sanction for her conduct.

What should you do?

As a preventative measure, it is important that all policies are clear and up to date to ensure employees are aware of what conduct is appropriate and what the consequences may be if they act to the contrary. Additionally, whenever you are considering dismissing an employee for gross misconduct, it is essential that you are certain that the decision is correct and lawfully justified in order to prevent any adverse tribunal attention.

_______________

Case 3 – Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire: Racial harassment & accents

Ms Carozzi is a Brazilian national of Jewish ethnic origin. Following comments during her probationary period that her accent was “very strong” which made it “difficult for her to be understood,” she resigned and brought a claim that included harassment on grounds of race.

Dismissing the harassment claim, the employment tribunal found the comments did not amount to harassment as they had not been motivated by race but had been about the Ms Carozzi’s intelligibility or comprehensibility when speaking.

Upholding Ms Carozzi’s appeal, the EAT held the tribunal was wrong to require the same mental element for a harassment claim as required for direct discrimination.

Referring to sexist jokes or racially insensitive terms, the EAT held that harassment may occur where the harasser is not motivated by any characteristic. In these situations, the harassment would still be ‘related to’ the protected characteristic.

The EAT went on to note that, as it could be an important part of a person’s national or ethnic identity, criticism of their accent could violate their dignity by being related to the protected characteristic of race.

This case confirms that for harassment to be related to a protected characteristic, there only needs to be an objective link between the conduct and the harassment without the need for conduct to be motivated by the characteristic.

What should you do?

To protect all employees – either from harassment or from inadvertently causing harassment – a clear policy should be in place that has been read and understood, providing guidance on what can amount to harassment. The policy should also be clear about what someone who believes they have been harassed should do and the penalties that anyone who is found to have harassed can expect.

_______________

Case 4 – Eddie Stobart Limited v Graham: Unfair dismissal

Ms Graham brought claims for automatic unfair dismissal and pregnancy/maternity discrimination at the ET, alleging that her employer failed to offer her a role that she considered was a ‘suitable alternative’ when she applied for a role and was unsuccessful following an interview.

When Ms Graham learnt the outcome of her application, she raised a grievance with ES Ltd. Ms Graham was dismissed for redundancy on 26 May 2022, and whilst she did not appeal against the outcome of her dismissal, she raised the fact that her grievance had not been dealt with.

Ms Graham’s grievance had been blocked by ES Ltd’s firewall when she had emailed it on two occasions. The ET held that ES Ltd had missed opportunities to query Ms Graham about her grievance when she raised it with two of its employees (one of whom was HR business partner) and had failed to look into why it had not been received.

The ET awarded £10k to the claimant.

The matter proceeded to the EAT where it was held that the £10k awarded to Ms Graham was manifestly excessive for a pregnancy/maternity discrimination claim that was limited to how the employer failed to take the appropriate steps to deal with the grievance that had been blocked by its firewall. The EAT reduced the award to £2k, but was prepared to factor in the fact that Ms Graham had spent time during her maternity leave chasing the grievance when she should have been enjoying her maternity leave.

What should you do?

Whilst the EAT reduced the award received by Ms Graham, this case highlights the importance of employers being vigilant when advised of a pending grievance by an employee. It shows that it’s not sufficient to take the ‘wait and see’ approach if an employee has advised that they have sent a grievance which does not appear to have been received. Instead, managers and HR should make enquiries of the individual to ensure that if a grievance has been sent, it is received and then dealt with within the timescale contained in the company’s policy.

If you and your business require expert guidance on how to navigate any issues you may have encountered, please get in touch – our team will be willing to help.

To receive our e-newsletter dedicated to employment law & business immigration case law, news and updates, be sure to subscribe by signing up to our mailings.

Our Legal 500-rated employment law & business immigration team are experts in guiding businesses of all sizes and backgrounds through a range of issues that may arise.