The case of Mr F Ngole vs Touchstone Leeds has led to a mixed conclusion. Ngole, Christian social worker achieved partial success in his belief discrimination claim after a charity withdrew its job offer upon discovering his Facebook posts about the LGBT community. What does this result mean for employers?
Hiring Process
Touchstone, a charity which offers mental health services across Yorkshire, was seeking to hire a discharge mental health support worker in Spring 2o22. The role would involve working with vulnerable people directly after leaving hospital for mental health reasons. Felix Ngole, a devout christian and qualified social worker, applied for the role, describing it as his ‘dream job’. Following a round of interviews, he was deemed the most qualified and received a conditional job offer for the role on 19th May 2022. However, his references were unsatisfactory, providing little detail about his previous work performance, which led the hiring manager to google his name.
Here they discovered a previous court case between Ngole and the University of Sheffield. Ngole had been removed from his course for comments he made online about the LGBT community. He had commented on facebook posts comments such as: “…[Homosexuality] is a wicked act and God hates the act”; “… Same sex marriage is a sin whether we accept it or not”. However, he successfully won his case, arguing he had been discriminated on grounds of his conservative christian views, and continued his course to qualify as a social worker.
Upon discovering this information, Touchstone withdrew Ngole’s offer without discussion on 10th June 2022. In the letter, Touchstone explained that Ngole’s beliefs did not align with their inclusive ethos surrounding the LGBT community. Ngole’s views were, in their view, not compatible with working with vulnerable, possibly LGBT individuals.
Second Meeting
Ngole however denied that he was not fit for the role and requested a meeting to discuss the situation. This took place a few weeks later. Here, the hiring manager asked a number of questions surrounding how Ngole would approach dealing with LGBT patients. They emphasised that Ngole would need to promote LGBT rights and receive training on it. In the interview, Ngole answered many questions explaining he would simply follow the organisation’s policies to various theoretical scenarios presented to him. This led Touchstone to believe he was simply going through the motions with his answers. Unsatisfied with the Ngole’s interview performance, Touchstone withdrew their offer permanently.
Arguments
Following this decision, Ngole filed a claim for religious discrimination at the Sheffield Employment Tribunal. He argued that he had been discriminated against for his religion, a protected trait. In his view, his religious beliefs did not affect his ability to carry out the role at all. He pointed to his previous successful social work, including working with LGBT individuals. Additionally, he explained that his christian faith led him to ‘not discriminate’ and love everyone. In his second interview, he had continuously emphasised his willingness to work with the LGBT community, and that he would only express his religious views if called upon.
However Touchstone contended this. Touchstone emphasised the duty of care they have to patients, explaining that vulnerable LGBT individuals could be ‘devastated’ if they discovered Ngole’s views, following support from him. This could lead them to self harm. As demonstrated, a quick google of his name would pull up articles about his beliefs and around 10% of Touchstone’s users identify as LGBT. There had previously been no conflict in the organisation between Christians and LGBT individuals, with around one third of staff identifying with either group. Ngole was unique amongst the christian social workers in how he had chosen to express his beliefs online.
Judge’s Conclusion
The judge found that Ngole had been discriminated against after his initial offer was withdrawn. The judge found that withdrawing the offer, without giving Ngole the opportunity to discuss the concerns, had been an ‘intrusive measure’. Pursuing a second interview, to discuss the concerns, as was done a few days later, was more appropriate.
However, the judge ruled that the discrimination ended here. Ngole’s claims for indirect discrimination and harassment were rejected. Additionally, ultimately withdrawing the job offer after the second interview was found to not be discriminatory:
Balancing the interests of the respondent in preserving the mental health of their service users against the wishes of the claimant to work for the respondent and his ability to work elsewhere gives only one answer. The balance favours the respondent, and their actions were therefore proportionate and are justified.
The case serves as a reminder of the difficult balancing act employers must make. Sometimes the rights of different groups can come into conflict, requiring a weighing up of the issues. In this case, Touchstone were found to be justified in how they weighed up the needs of their service users against Ngole’s right to express his religious views.