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 October 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Section 172 Companies Act 2006: Key lessons from Saxon Woods v Costa

The Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods v Costa UKSC 21 clarifies directors’ duties under Section 172 Companies Act 2006, confirming that good faith requires both honest belief and appropriate conduct.

art
  • 22 October 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Shareholders’ Agreements for Founders and Investors – SHA Series Part 3 of 5

A shareholders’ agreement is arguably one of the most valuable corporate governance agreements (along with articles of association) in any private UK company with more than one shareholder.

art
  • 19 October 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work Checks: Are UK businesses becoming immigration enforcement officers?

The UK’s Right to Work regime has undergone a significant expansion, with changes taking effect from 1 October 2026.

art
  • 15 October 2026

Clarkslegal celebrates continued success in Chambers and Partners UK 2027

Clarkslegal is delighted to announce that we have once again been recognised by Chambers and Partners UK 2027, celebrating continued success across the firm and a number of enhanced individual rankings.

Pub
  • 15 October 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Data breaches and ICO investigations: Responding with confidence

In this podcast Harry Berryman and Zahra Navarro discuss recent ICO enforcement action, common causes of data breaches, and the practical steps organisations should take to respond effectively when incidents occur.

art
  • 14 October 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

London Court of International Arbitration v International Chamber of Commerce: Key differences

Compare LCIA and ICC arbitration rules, costs, confidentiality provisions and expedited procedures. Learn the key differences between these leading international arbitration institutions and how to choose the right option for your commercial dispute.