Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employment lawEquality, diversity and inclusionEmployment tribunalsReligious discriminationSexual orientation

Case of the week McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd

by Personnel Today 4 Jan 2010
by Personnel Today 4 Jan 2010

FACTS

Gary McFarlane joined Relate Avon, which provides relationship counselling services, in 2003. He was required to, and did, sign up to Relate’s equal opportunities policy. This states that it “is committed to ensuring that no person … receives less favourable treatment on the basis of personal or group characteristics”. McFarlane was also required to abide by the British Association for Sexual and Relationship Therapy’s Code of Ethics.

In accordance with its equal opportunities policy and the code, Relate offers its services to both same-sex couples and heterosexual couples. However, McFarlane’s religious beliefs were that same-sex sexual activity is sinful and that he would therefore not endorse such activity. However, he was prepared to counsel same-sex couples where sexual issues were not involved.

In 2006, McFarlane said that he wanted to undertake a diploma course in psycho-sexual therapy, concerned specifically with problems of sexual dysfunction. However, McFarlane wanted to be exempt from any obligation to work with same-sex couples where sexual issues were involved. Relate wrote to McFarlane making it clear that any such stance would be in conflict with its equal opportunities policy. Relate asked McFarlane to confirm that he would counsel same-sex couples with regard to any sexual issues involved. McFarlane did not do so and Relate initiated its disciplinary procedure. At an investigatory meeting, McFarlane said that he would work with same-sex couples but a subsequent conversation with his supervisor undermined Relate’s confidence in this statement.

A disciplinary hearing was held and McFarlane was summarily dismissed. The reasons given were that he had “stated to Relate that [he] would comply with its equal opportunities policy and professional ethics policy in relation to work with same-sex couples and same-sex sexual activities, when [he] had no and [has] no intention of complying with Relate’s policies on those issues”. McFarlane issued an employment tribunal claim complaining, among other things, of discrimination and harassment under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

DECISION

The employment tribunal dismissed McFarlane’s complaints of discrimination and harassment. It said that he was not directly discriminated against because Relate would not have treated a counsellor, who for reasons unrelated to Christianity, was believed to be unwilling to provide counselling to same-sex couples and therefore unwilling to abide by Relate’s equal opportunities policy, any differently. Further, the tribunal said that McFarlane was not indirectly discriminated against because Relate had demonstrated that dismissing McFarlane was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of providing non-discriminatory services. McFarlane appealed the tribunal’s findings on discrimination. The Tribunal’s view was upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

IMPLICATIONS

This case is further confirmation that although the religion/belief regulations protect against direct discrimination arising from a religion or belief held by an employee, they do not protect the right to manifest that religion or belief as the employee chooses. In making its findings on indirect discrimination, the EAT relied on the reasoning in a previous case, Ladele v London Borough of Islington. That case was sent to the Court of Appeal and judgment was delivered after the EAT’s findings in this case. However, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that an employer’s commitment to an equal opportunities policy can, in appropriate circumstances, objectively justify any indirectly discriminatory treatment.

Mary Clarke, employment partner, DLA Piper

UK Employment Law from Employers’ Law and Personnel Today
UK employment law news, opinion and analysis
is published daily on our Employers’ Law channel

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 

 

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Virgin Trains ticket office staff strike
next post
New Years Honours include OBE for BT’s HR director, Caroline Waters

You may also like

Fire and rehire: the relocation question

22 May 2025

Restaurant tips should be included in holiday pay

21 May 2025

Fewer workers would comply with a return-to-office mandate

21 May 2025

Redefining leadership: From competence to inclusion

21 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Black security manager awarded £360k after decade of...

20 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

Union rep teacher awarded £370k for unfair dismissal

15 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+