| |
Protected by law
• SHEILA Moberly is confused in her understanding of the Employment Equality Regulations 2003 (Indulging personal prejudices, August 15). Unfair or unequal treatment of an employee on grounds of religious belief was prohibited under these regulations and this was reaffirmed in part 2 of the Equality Act 2006 that was the precursor of the equality regulations of the following year, an important fact that she has chosen to overlook.
Both pieces of legislation outlawed direct or indirect discrimination against someone for exercising his or her religious belief, each of which the tribunal found proven in the Ladele case.
This case neither affects nor diminishes in any way the legal rights of others. Rather, it established that a person of religious belief cannot be dismissed for exercising his or her conscience and has the same full employment rights and legal entitlement as anyone else. Ms Moberly evidently thinks they should not have these rights, but unfortunately for her the law says otherwise. Most people would probably believe that on this occasion the law has got it correct.
The real mistake was for Islington Council to have allowed such a situation to arise as Ms Ladele had not previously had to perform these ceremonies and her participation in them was not necessary as there were others who were willing to conduct them and thus accommodation could have been made.
What has been established in this case nevertheless is an important achievement.
JOHN MCPARTLIN
Highbury Grove, N5
|
 |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
