In Wasteney v East London NHS Trust, Miss Wasteney (W) is a born-again Christian who attends the Christian Revival Church. She is Head of Forensic Occupational Therapy at the Trust. Complaints had been made about W by a junior worker of the Muslim faith, EN an occupational therapist. The complaints related to various interactions EN had with W, which EN characterised as “grooming”; these included W praying with EN and the laying on of hands, giving a book to EN, which concerned the conversion to Christianity of a Muslim woman, and inviting her to various services and events at W’s Church.  

The Trust investigated the complaints under its disciplinary procedure and found W guilty of serious misconduct, namely the blurring of professional boundaries and the subjection of a junior colleague to improper pressure and unwanted conduct. W was given a final written warning, reduced on appeal to a first written warning. An employment tribunal (ET) rejected W’s claims of: (i) direct discrimination because of religion or belief; (ii) harassment related to religion or belief; and (iii) a breach of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Right, (the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), by imposing a disciplinary warning because she had exercised her right to manifest her belief by sharing her faith with a consenting colleague. 

The EAT rejected W’s appeal. W’s case was based on characterising the manifestation of her religious belief in a “consensual” way with EN.  However, as the ET had found, the Trust had not taken action against W on that basis.  W was not given a warning because she manifested her religious belief in voluntary and consensual exchanges with EN but because she subjected a subordinate to unwanted and unwelcome conduct, going substantially beyond “religious discussion”, without regard to her own influential position. The treatment of which W complained was because of, and related to, those inappropriate actions. It was not because of, or related to any legitimate manifestation of her belief. Therefore, her direct discrimination and harassment claims failed. 

As for the Article 9 claim, the ET were right to decide that the Convention did not give W a complete and unfettered right to discuss or act on her religious beliefs at work irrespective of the views of others or her employer. While Article 9(1) gave the right to freedom of religion, it was qualified by Article 9(2), which states that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief is limited in the way it can be exercised, including, that it cannot be done so in a way which impinges on the rights and freedoms of others.

Content Note

The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.