While Coronavirus – COVID-19 falls outside the normal scope of L&RUK, in view of its widespread impact in this area it has been the subject of a number of posts.
Law & Religion UK is intended as a forum for what (we hope) is academically-rigorous exploration of the interactions between law and religion – broadly defined – together with the human rights issues associated with them. We are always interested in guest posts from colleagues in the field of law and religion.
We also welcome pertinent comments on current developments that reflect the views and opinions of their respective authors and meet the General Conditions applying to the site. However, those that do not meet those criteria or which are otherwise unidentifiable are unlikely to be published, especially comments that are abusive or defamatory. For more information see our comments policy below.
We write this blog because we’re passionate about our subject and – unlike some legal resources – it’s free to access and we aim to keep it that way.
if you’ve found the blog useful, might we suggest that you consider making a small donation to The Billable Hour? It’s the lawyers’ charity that raises money for Save the Children – and even a billable five minutes would help some of the most deprived children on the planet.
We welcome comments, subject to the following conditions:
- We will not publish comments that, in our opinion, are abusive, racist, homophobic, potentially defamatory or otherwise capable of offending the laws against hate speech – or common decency.
- Since L&RUK is intended as a blog for academic comment, those that add little to the academic debate on a particular issue are unlikely to be published.
- As a rule of thumb, we will not normally publish comments received more than fourteen days from the original day of posting.
- Anonymous comments will not be published.
Our decision as to whether or not a comment should be published is final.
Frank Cranmer & David Pocklington
Guest post by Russell Sandberg on an interesting employment case.
The decision in Mrs K Higgs v Farmor’s School  ET 1401264/219 has attracted significant attention in the media. However, its importance in terms of the developing case law on religion or belief discrimination is not about its finding that there was no direct discrimination; it is rather about what it says about the fifth test for the definition of belief.
The claimant had made a number of reposts on Facebook concerning the teaching in schools on same-sex marriage and about gender fluidity with her commenting on the post that ‘they are brainwashing our children’. In response to an e-mail complaint to the school from an outsider, the claimant was suspended from her role as pastoral administrator and work experience manager at the school. Following a disciplinary hearing, she was dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct. The claimant subsequently presented her claim to the Employment Tribunal alleging that she had been discriminated against on grounds of religion and had not been harassed. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim. Continue reading