Imagine this.

You interview a Christian candidate who believes same-sex relationships are sinful. He has expressed those views publicly. Colleagues complain. Service users feel uneasy.

Do you give him the job? And if not, are you targeting the belief, or the way it was expressed?

That was the tension in Mr F Ngole v Touchstone Leeds.

What happened?

Mr Ngole is a practising Christian who holds traditional biblical views on sexuality and gender. He believes same-sex relationships are sinful and that gender is biologically determined. Those beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010.

The difficulty arose from how he expressed those beliefs.

Mr Ngole posted comments on social media in response to discussions about same-sex adoption and LGBT relationships. He quoted biblical passages and described homosexual acts as sinful. His tone was unequivocal. His posts were publicly accessible.

Touchstone Leeds is a charity providing mental health and wellbeing services. Its work involves vulnerable service users and a diverse community. The organisation promotes, as its core values: equality, inclusion and non-discrimination.

Its concerns were not abstract. Colleagues and stakeholders pointed to the specific wording of the posts. They questioned whether someone who had publicly described same-sex relationships in those terms could work effectively with LGBTQIA service users.

Touchstone concluded that the way Mr Ngole had expressed his beliefs risked undermining trust with service users and damaging the charity’s reputation. It withdrew its job offer.

Mr Ngole alleged discrimination because of his Christian beliefs.

What did the EAT decide?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal did not resolve the underlying discrimination question. Instead, it examined the Tribunal’s reasoning.

It held that the Tribunal had failed to determine clearly why the employer acted. It had not properly separated the protected belief from its manifestation.

The Tribunal needed to decide whether Touchstone acted because of Mr Ngole’s held beliefs, or because of how he expressed those beliefs publicly, and the perceived impact of that expression.

The decision could not safely stand.

Why did it reach that decision?

Because discrimination law demands precision about motive.

The Equality Act protects religious belief. An employer cannot treat someone less favourably because they hold that belief.

But the law draws a distinction between holding a belief and manifesting it. Manifestation means expressing or acting on a belief. That expression can be limited, particularly where it affects the rights of others or conflicts with legitimate organisational aims.

The question is: what was the reason for the employer’s action?

Did the employer think, ‘We cannot employ someone with those beliefs’? That points towards direct discrimination.

Or did the employer think, ‘The way these views were expressed creates a real risk to service delivery and public confidence’? That may justify acting, if they respond proportionately.

The Tribunal blurred those two concepts. It did not ask the question: if Mr Ngole had held the same beliefs but expressed them differently, would the employer have acted?

This is where cases are won or lost. Not on broad values, but on analysis of the reason for a decision.

What should you do?

If you face similar tensions:

• separate belief from behaviour explicitly in investigation and disciplinary documents
• quote the specific words or conduct said to cause concern
• identify the legitimate aim you seek to protect, for example, safeguarding, dignity at work, or organisational reputation
• test proportionality before acting, not after litigation begins
• ask whether the same belief, expressed in a less confrontational way, would have led to the same outcome.

If your documentation criticises the views rather than the specific conduct, you increase your litigation risk.

Are your managers clear about what they are disciplining, or are you leaving that distinction to be reconstructed under cross-examination?

Source: Mr F Ngole v Touchstone Leeds : [2026] EAT 29