Rev. K Walters v The Active Learning Trust Ltd and H Davies: 3324619/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 2022 |
| Date | 21 April 2022 |
| Citation | 3324619/2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 04 May 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 3324619/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Rev. Keith Walters v
The Active Learning Trust Ltd (1)
Helen Davies
(2)
Heard at: Cambridge Employment Tribunal
On: 17th – 21st January 2022
Before: Employment Judge King
Members: Mr G Page
Ms L Davies
Appearances
For the Claimant: Mr Philips (counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr Peacock (solicitor)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claimant’s claim for direct discrimination is not well founded and is
dismissed.
2. The claimant was subjected to indirect discrimination on the ground of
religion or belief by being given a final written warning on 23rd July 2019.
3. The claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal is not well founded and is
dismissed.
REASONS
1. This is the judgment of the Tribunal in the above matter which was listed
for 5 days on 17th – 21st January 2022. This hearing was held as a hybrid
hearing. The Claimant and his representatives and some supporters
attended in person with other interested parties including members of the
Case Number: 3324619/2019
2
press. On some days these other interested parties attended via CVP. The
Respondent’s representatives and witnesses joined via CVP. The panel
was also hybrid with Mr Page participating via CVP and Ms Davies and
Employment Judge King at the hearing centre.
2. The claimant was represented by Mr Philips of Counsel. The first and
second respondents were represented by Mr Peacock, solicitor. We heard
evidence from the Claimant and he also relied on a written expert’s
report/statement from Dr Martin David Parsons. We did not hear evidence
from Dr Parsons although we were told that he was available and took his
statement as read since the respondent did not have any cross
examination of the witness. It was agreed that any submissions could be
made as to the report and the weight the Tribunal should attach to it. The
report was helpful to the Tribunal to explain some of the Evangelical
beliefs and deal with group disadvantage. The report at times went further
than it needed to on matters such as the potential conflict between LGBTQ
activists and evangelical Christians but we attached weight to the relevant
parts of the report and were able to discount other matters.
3. On behalf of the respondent, we heard evidence from Laura Fielding who
was the investigating officer and Deputy Head, Ms Helen Davies who was
the disciplinary officer and Head Teacher and Ms Marion Lloyd who was
the appeal officer and a Governor at the time.
4. We had helpful written and oral submissions from both sides. The parties
had exchanged witness statements for all of the witnesses and prepared
an agreed bundle to which we had regard in the hearing. There were
some issues over additional documentation for the bundle but these were
resolved by consent and added to the bundle. Some additional documents
were requested by the Tribunal as they were referred to in evidence or
considered relevant and we were made aware of their existence by the
witnesses so ordered that they be produced including the complaints
policy of the School as this was a central issue in the case.
Case Number: 3324619/2019
3
5. At the outset of the hearing the claims were identified as unfair dismissal
(constructive) and indirect and direct discrimination. The claimant relied
on the protected characteristic of his religion and/or beliefs as set out
below. The parties had agreed a list of issues in advance which was in the
bundle.
The issues
6. The parties had agreed the issues which we revisited at the outset of the
hearing and decided to deal with liability only at the hearing so have not
considered the remedy issues identified by the parties on the agreed list of
issues at this stage. In respect of the discrimination complaints the
claimant relies on his religion and/or belief as a Christian and in particular
as set out in paragraph 47 of the amended particulars of claim:
6.1 The Christian religion;
6.2 The belief in the literal truth of the Bible;
6.3 Belief that Christians ought to strive in accordance with the biblical
truth;
6.4 Belief that sexual relationships are only appropriate within a
heterosexual marriage as defined by the Bible;
6.5 Belief in the duty of Christians to proclaim the gospel to others;
6.6 Belief that Christians should encourage each other to live Godly lives
and therefore avoid events and locations in which sin will or might be
celebrated 1Thessalonians 5:21-22 Prove all things; hold fast that
which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Direct discrimination
7. Whether because of the claimant’s religion and belief set out above, the
respondent treated the claimant less favourably than they treat or would
have treated, others (hypothetical comparator) in the following ways:
7.1 The investigation;
To continue reading
Request your trial