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

Pub
  • 07 September 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Frequently Asked Questions About Shareholders’ Agreements – Episode 1

Join Emma Docking and Jonathan Hayes as they explore some of the most frequently asked questions about shareholders’ agreements, including what they are, how they work alongside articles of association, and the risks of operating without one.

art
  • 03 September 2026
  • Employment

Employment Rights Act – October Changes

We are well and truly underway with implementation of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (“ERA 2025”) and October brings the next tranche of changes that employers will need to be ready for.

art
  • 02 September 2026
  • Immigration

Mandatory MFA for Sponsor Management System Users: What Sponsors Need to Know

The Home Office is introducing a significant security change to the Sponsor Management System (SMS). From 3 September 2026, the Home Office will begin a phased rollout of mandatory Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for SMS users.

art
  • 01 September 2026

Orwins continues growth with investment in Milners and Acquisition of Roe Lawyers

Clarkslegal is pleased to share the news that Orwins, the legal services group we joined earlier this year, has announced a significant investment in Yorkshire law firm Milners and the acquisition of London-based specialist practice Roe Lawyers.

Pub
  • 28 August 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work and Sponsor Licence Changes 2026: Key dates for businesses

In this podcast, immigration solicitors Ruth Karimatsenga and Monica Mastropasqua discuss the key immigration compliance changes coming into force in September and October 2026 and what employers, HR teams, sponsors and individuals should do to prepare.

art
  • 28 August 2026
  • Commercial Real Estate

Modernising security of tenure: The Law Commission’s follow up consultation paper

On 16th June 2026, the Commission published its second consultation paper: Business Tenancies: the right to renew – modernising security of tenure.