|
|
 |
| |
Lillian Ladele |
Ladele case expected to be overturned
A DECISION by a judge on the controversial ruling in favour of registrar Lillian Ladele, who refused to “marry” gay couples, is expected to find in Islington Council’s favour today (Friday).
According to well-placed sources, Justice Sir Patrick Elias, president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, will uphold the Town Hall’s appeal against an earlier ruling to award damages to Ms Ladele because she was discriminated against on account of her religious belief that all homosexuals are “sinners”.
Ms Ladele, 47, of Skinner Street, Finsbury, will walk away from the hearing with thousands of pounds in damages if the council’s appeal is quashed.
But, as reported in last week’s Tribune, employment Justice Elias criticising the judgement in support of Ms Ladele, who was threatened with the sack by the Town Hall because of her refusal to take part in civil partnership ceremonies.
Due to the unique nature of the case, which will affect every local authority in the country, it is expected that if the judgement goes against Ms Ladele, her lawyers will appeal to a higher court.
Justice Elias told last week’s tribunal hearing: “Let’s say I am an anarchist and I feel strongly that I want to go around blowing things up, but my employers object.
“It may well be that anarchy is my genuinely held belief. But it does not mean that my employer’s decision not to allow me to [do so] is discriminating against that belief.”
Justice Elias said the fundamental problem with the tribunal’s judgement was that the reason for her treatment was not properly addressed.
“Nowhere does the tribunal say: Let’s analyse whether the reason for her disciplinary hearing was her religious belief,” said Justice Elias. “The council say the reason was that she refused to carry out civil partnerships. This is a fundamental error to confuse unreasonable behaviour and discriminatory behaviour. I am not sure the tribunal appreciated that.”
He added: “So often employers get things badly wrong. In this case in Islington, I would say that argument could probably be sustained.
“But getting things wrong is not the same as discrimination.” |
 |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
