The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Ngole v Touchstone Leeds [2026] EAT 29 found that The Employment Tribunal (ET) erred in law in its analysis of certain complaints of direct discrimination because of religious belief.
The case acts as stark clarification and reinforcement of discrimination law and tightens the legal framework in favour of clearer reasoning and stronger protection for religious belief under the Equality Act 2010.
It now acts as a key authority on:
- How tribunals analyse direct discrimination claims;
- What employers may (and may not) rely on when assessing applicants with protected beliefs; and
- The proper analytical separation between belief, manifestation, and third‑party reactions.
Facts
The respondent is a charity that provides mental health and well-being services. It is committed to promoting equality, diversity and inclusion and has a strong track record of specifically adapting and tailoring its services to the LGBTQI+ community.
Mr Ngole (the claimant) had a conditional job offer for the role of discharge mental health support worker with the respondent.
Mr Ngole’s pleaded beliefs included:
- Marriage being a lifelong union between one man and one woman;
- Sexual relationships only according with a monogamous marriage of one man and one woman;
- Sex being a biologically immutable fact based on the Bible; and
- Lack of belief in transgenderism.
Due to a lack of detailed references, the respondent carried out an online search of Mr Ngole and found that he had previously brought a claim against Sheffield University (R (on the application of Ngole) v University of Sheffield [2019] EWCA Civ 1127). The facts of this case were that Mr Ngole had been removed from the MA Social Work course at Sheffield University because of Facebook posts concerning Kim Davis, an American registrar, who had been imprisoned after refusing to administer same-sex marriages because of her Christian beliefs. Mr Ngole successfully appealed and won his claim that the university’s decision was an unlawful interference of his rights under Articles 9 (freedom of religion) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR.
After finding this information out, the respondent expressed concern that Mr Ngole’s beliefs were not “seemingly in alignment with the respondent’s vision, values and ethos”. In particular, his beliefs regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Subsequently, they decided to withdraw Mr Ngole’s conditional job offer.
The respondent invited Mr Ngole to a second meeting to discuss a potential reconsideration of the withdrawal, if he could provide assurances that his role would not be compromised by his views and that he would fully embrace the respondent’s values (including the promotion of homosexual rights) and work respectfully with those he would encounter.
Mr Ngole brought complaints of direct and indirect belief discrimination and belief harassment against the respondent.
The ET found that the initial withdrawal of the job offer was direct discrimination based on religion or belief, but held that it was not direct discrimination for the respondent to require Mr Ngole to attend a second interview and subsequently not reinstate the job offer.
Appeal
Mr Ngole was granted permission to appeal only the direct belief discrimination complaint.
The EAT found the approach adopted by the ET “difficult to follow”. They held the ET had erred in law when determining whether the respondent’s actions were because of the Mr Ngole’s beliefs, or the inappropriate manifestation of those beliefs.
The key errors of the ET were:
- Failure to separately analyse each reason for the respondent’s actions;
- Incorrect approach to direct discrimination analysis; and
- The ET did not properly analyse the extent to which the decision not to reinstate the offer resulted from a failure to provide assurances that could be properly severable from the holding of the belief.
- The ET also did not properly analyse, in light of what Mr Ngole said at the meeting, whether the treatment was justified on Bank Mellat principles, particularly having regard to the greater discriminatory effect of not reinstating the job offer as opposed to the requirement to attend a second meeting.
- Insufficient analysis of the respondent’s concerns regarding service user reaction.
- The ET had failed to analyse what the respondent thought its service users might find objectionable about the posts and whether what was objectionable was properly separable from Mr Ngole’s beliefs. The EAT held it was likely that the objection would result from the discovery that Mr Ngole held the beliefs that “homosexuality is a sin” and “same sex marriage is a sin whether we like or not”. They held while many may find such views objectionable and deeply upsetting, those beliefs were accepted by the respondent to be protected religious beliefs. To the extent that the decision to call Mr Ngole to the second interview was because of a concern that service users might have reacted badly merely to the fact that Mr Ngole held the religious beliefs in question, that would be treatment because of the belief and not capable of justification.
Judgment
The EAT has remitted the case back to the ET, who will be required to analyse each reason, or group of related reasons, for the treatment separately and decide whether, at least in part, the treatment of Mr Ngole was, in reality, because of his religious beliefs as opposed to something properly separable from them that justified the treatment.
