A controversial sermon on LGBT issues

A school chaplain was held not to have suffered belief discrimination or been unfairly dismissed following a controversial sermon on LGBT issues.

In the matter of Randall v Trent College Ltd and others,  an employment tribunal rejected a claim that a Christian school chaplain suffered discrimination after a sermon he delivered in the school chapel. The sermon had followed the school's adoption of the "Educate and Celebrate" (E and C) programme, aimed at "tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying and ingrained attitudes in schools". The claimant opposed E and C (and what he described as "identity politics"), which he said were contrary to Christian teaching and went beyond tackling bullying. His sermon dealt with this "conflict of values” and stated that pupils did not have to accept the ideas and ideologies of LGBT activists where they conflict with Christian values but should make up their own minds.

The sermon led to a high number of complaints from staff and pupils. Disciplinary proceedings were commenced, and the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct, but reinstated upon appeal. His role was later made redundant.

The claimant brought claims of religion or belief discrimination, harassment and unfair dismissal, citing freedom of belief and freedom of expression under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The tribunal, however, held that the claimant's treatment had not been because of his beliefs, but because of his objectionable manifestation/expression of them. Following earlier sermons, he had given on marriage, sexual orientation and gender identity, the school had informed the claimant that these were sensitive topics that should only be dealt with in a classroom setting where ideas could be discussed and challenged. Dealing with them in a chapel (where no discussion could be had) risked distress and psychological harm to vulnerable LGBT+ students coming to terms with their sexual identity. The claimant had ignored that advice and given a sermon that was considered to be entirely self-serving, despite the fact that he had a position of authority and trust, but in order to try and persuade them to his way of thinking. He had chosen not to share the topic in advance, so that he would not be stopped.

The school had therefore been justified in objecting to the way the claimant manifested and expressed his beliefs, as he had acted contrary to his safeguarding duties and the school's statutory duties to pupils. The claimant had argued that his redundancy had been “artificially orchestrated” but the respondents had countered that he had been dismissed because of redundancy, pure and simple. The Tribunal concluded that his dismissal had been by reason of genuine redundancy and because the requirement of the School for the Claimant to carry out Chaplaincy work had ceased or diminished. The decision to dismiss him therefore fell within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer in those circumstances.

The decision is being appealed so watch this space…