Manifesting Belief

Although the law says that employees cannot be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, the courts have made clear that this is not an absolute right. In Trayhorn v Secretary of State for Justice, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the prison’s disciplinary and equalities policies had not imposed a disproportionate restraint on the manifestation of an employee’s religious belief.

Basic facts 

Mr Trayhorn, a Pentecostal Christian, worked as a gardener at HM Prison Littlehey which houses about 1,200 inmates including sex offenders and young offenders. He also helped at services in the prison chapel on a voluntary basis.

In February 2014, the managing chaplain received a complaint that, during a service in the chapel, Mr Trayhorn had said that marriage between homosexuals was wrong and should be stopped. As a result, he was told not to preach at services in the future. However, he made similar comments on 31 May 2014, saying that: “you may want to complain about this, but this is the word of God”. Three more prisoners complained shortly afterwards. 

Although an investigation concluded he should face a disciplinary hearing, Mr Trayhorn went on sick leave in August 2014. He was told at a meeting in October at his home that he would not be dismissed but in November Mr Trayhorn resigned. Two days later, the disciplinary hearing took place at which he was given a final written warning.

He brought tribunal claims for constructive dismissal and religious discrimination, arguing (amongst other things) that he had suffered indirect discrimination that could not be objectively justified. In particular he relied on three provisions, criteria or practices (PCPs) in the prison’s conduct and disciplinary policy, its policy on equality of treatment for employees and an unwritten practice that discussion of homosexuality and Christian sexual ethics could not be mentioned or explained in the prison.

Tribunal decision

The tribunal rejected all the claims. It found the difficulties experienced by Mr Trayhorn were the result of his lack of sensitivity toward the congregation and his encouragement for them to raise complaints about him. The indirect discrimination claims failed because he had not produced any evidence to show that the PCPs had a disparate impact on a group of which he was a member.

The tribunal went on to say that derogatory remarks could be seen to legitimise bullying or other mistreatment towards a group of prisoners sharing a particular characteristic, as well as lead to feelings of increased vulnerability among them. As such, the tribunal held that even if Mr Trayhorn’s claims showed the necessary disparate impact (which it rejected), the prison’s aim of protecting the security of everyone within it was wholly legitimate and proportionately applied. 

EAT decision

Mr Trayhorn appealed, his main argument being that the tribunal had applied a threshold which was too high for group disadvantage to be satisfied. It was clear, said the EAT, from both the evidence of the Pentecostal minister at the prison and the Christian chaplain that they recognised the sensitivity around equalities in an establishment like HMP Littlehey. The Pentecostal minister in particular said he would have used the Bible text in a different way, ensuring it was placed in context. Likewise, the Christian minister confirmed that the equality policy did not prevent the Chaplaincy from operating in a pastorally sensitive manner.

The EAT was satisfied therefore that the tribunal was right to decide that the PCPs had not imposed a disproportionate restraint on the manifestation of Mr Trayhorn’s religious belief, but was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim in the circumstances of the sensitivity of the prison environment. It therefore dismissed the appeal.