Search

How can we help?

Icon

Disciplining an employee for imposing her religious beliefs was not discriminatory

Religious discussion between employees in the workplace could cause a disciplinary action if it includes seeking to convince others of the benefits of a particular religion.

Employees often discuss various subjects not related to work in the workplace. For discussions around religious views employee’s should be made aware not to overstep the mark and become inappropriate, as an employer may be justified in imposing a disciplinary sanction.

The EAT has held in Wasteney v East London NHS Foundation Trust that a Christian senior manager was not discriminated against when she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for imposing her religious views on a Muslim junior employee.

Ms Wasteney (W), of Christian faith, was employed in a senior capacity by the East London NHS Foundation Trust. A junior colleague (“EN”), of Muslim faith, complained that W had tried to impose her religious view on her; inviting her to church events on several occasions, praying for her during a 1:1 meeting, ‘laying hands’ on her and giving her a book about a Muslim woman converting to Christianity. A disciplinary process commenced and W was issued with a written warning.

W pursued claims in the Employment Tribunal (and later the Employment Appeal Tribunal), alleging that subjecting her to disciplinary proceedings amounted to discrimination and harassment in relation to her religion or belief.  She also claimed that ‘sharing her faith with a consenting colleague’ was a manifestation of her religious belief and thus her employer had breached of her right under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights to manifest religious belief in the workplace.

 

 For discussions around religious views employee’s should be made aware not to overstep the mark and become inappropriate, as an employer may be justified in imposing a disciplinary sanction.

Her claims were dismissed.  Whilst religious acts formed part of the context to the disciplinary, the employer’s actions in disciplining W were on the basis that W had subjected a subordinate to unwanted and unwelcome conduct that amounted to far more than just religious discussion and had done so without regard to her own influential, senior position. EN had felt that she was being ‘groomed’ by W and made serious complaints.  W’s acts blurred professional boundaries and placed improper pressure on EN.    The Employment Appeal Tribunal commented that this approach must be right “otherwise an employer’s attempt to discipline an employee for the harassment of a co-worker related to (e.g.) the co-worker’s religion or belief could itself be characterised as harassment related to that protected characteristic.”

Religious discussion, which may include seeking to convince others of the benefits of a particular religion, may amount to a manifestation of religion or belief, however, this case makes clear that where an employee’s actions overstep the mark and become inappropriate, an employer may be justified in imposing a disciplinary sanction.  Employers going down the disciplinary route must ensure that a similar approach would have been taken if non-religious views had been advanced in the same manner.

Disclaimer

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 23 July 2026
  • Immigration

New Priority Service for British citizenship applications: Faster decisions now available

The Home Office has introduced a new Priority Service for British citizenship applications, allowing eligible applicants to receive a decision on their naturalisation or registration application in around 30 working days, rather than waiting the standard processing time of up to six months.

Pub
  • 21 July 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Quarterly Insights: Key Corporate & Commercial Topics – Q3 2026

Join Stuart Mullins and Jonathan Hayes as they explore the most topical corporate and commercial issues, along with key developments our team has examined over the past three months. In Q3, they discuss CICs, company registers, and the use of NDAs in business sales and exits.

art
  • 20 July 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Personal Data FAQs

Explore comprehensive answers to frequently asked questions about personal data, GDPR compliance, and your rights.

art
  • 16 July 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

EMIs – The basics

Discover the essentials of Enterprise Management Incentives (EMIs), an HMRC-approved employee share scheme offering tax advantages. Learn how EMIs incentivise staff, eligibility requirements, and how Clarkslegal can help tailor a scheme for you.

Pub
  • 15 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 overhaul: The end of Terms of Reference and future trends – Episode 3

In this final episode, Jack Hobbs (Clarkslegal) and Christopher Howitt (Three Stone) discuss the impact of the ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 overhaul, focusing on the end of Terms of Reference. Hear expert insights and practical tips for adapting to the new rules.

art
  • 15 July 2026
  • Employment

New guidance on interim relief: More applications, same high threshold

In certain limited unfair dismissal claims (such as those for automatic unfair dismissal relating to a protected disclosure) claimants can apply for interim relief. This is an emergency measure which essentially prevents a dismissal from taking effect until the claim has been heard.