In Ngole v Touchstone Leeds (RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION) [2026] EAT 29, the question before the Employment Appeal Tribunal was whether the Employment Tribunal had erred in law in its analysis of complaints by Mr Ngole of direct discrimination in employment because of his religious belief in a conservative view of sexuality [1].

Background

Mr Ngole, who holds an MA in Social Work from Sheffield University, applied for the role of discharge mental health support worker at Pinderfields Hospital in Wakefield [6 & 7]. He has firm religious beliefs in marriage as a divinely-instituted lifelong union between one man and one woman,  that sexual relationships may only be expressed within a monogamous marriage of one man and one woman, that sex is a biologically immutable, and that it is not possible for a person to change sex/gender [8] – and Touchstone accepted that he held those beliefs [9]. He had been removed from the Sheffield social work course, but was restored after he successfully sued in the Court of Appeal to be reinstated: see R (Ngole) v University of Sheffield [2019] EWCA Civ 1127 [16-21].

Touchstone gave him a provisional offer of a job, but when it became aware of the content of his Facebook posts and media report on the outcome of his appeal [22-25] and called him for a second interview [27], after which the offer was withdrawn.

In 2024, an Employment Tribunal ruled that Mr Ngole had been directly discriminated against when the job offer was withdrawn, but rejected his further discrimination claims about the second interview and Touchstone’s final decision not to employ him: we noted the judgment here. He appealed on a series of grounds.

The judgment

At the EAT, Employment Judge Tayler concluded that some of Touchstone’s reasoning might have been problematic, especially where it relied on fears that third parties would discover Mr Ngole’s beliefs; however, it had been lawful for Touchstone to seek reassurance by way of a second interview about how he would treat LGBTQI+ service users:

“On a fair reading of the judgment as a whole … it appears that the Employment Tribunal decided that the reasons for the respondent’s decision to invite the claimant to a second interview were because of the firm views that the claimant had expressed about homosexuality and same-sex marriage in the posts, of which the respondent was aware from reading the Guardian and BBC news stories, and the conclusion that the claimant should demonstrate that he would be able to meet the needs of the respondent’s service users and work with all his colleagues, including by complying with the respondent’s policies. The reference to reputation damage in this context is to the damage that would be caused if the respondent did not support its service users and employees from the LGBTQI+ community” [93].

He concluded, however, that the appeal succeeded in part. Touchstone’s refusal to reinstate the job offer was to be remitted to the Employment Tribunal that had heard the case originally, which

“must analyse each reason, or group of related reasons, for the treatment separately and decide whether, at least in part, the treatment of the claimant was, in reality, because of his religious beliefs as opposed to something properly separable from them that justified the treatment. While there has been a significant passage of time, I expect that the Employment Tribunal will remember the case well, and will be better placed than a newly constituted Employment Tribunal to carry out the necessary analysis” [123].