And speaking of having a lie down brings me to the very complex Ngole v Touchstone Leeds 2026 — an update on a case we’ve covered before, which may prompt a little rest after reading.

Here the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether the withdrawal of a job offer and related recruitment decisions concerning a candidate with strongly held religious beliefs amounted to unlawful direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.

Mr Ngole was a Christian who held and had previously expressed views on marriage, sexuality and gender which were accepted as protected religious beliefs. He applied for a role with Touchstone Leeds (TL) as a mental health support worker and was offered the position subject to satisfactory pre-employment checks, including references.

During those checks, TL became aware of historic social media posts in which Mr Ngole had expressed his beliefs in strong terms. TL raised concerns about the potential impact of those views on service users, particularly those from LGBTQ+ communities, as well as the potential reputational implications for the organisation.

As a result, Mr Ngole was invited to attend a further interview to explore these concerns and assess whether he could carry out the role in line with TL’s values and policies. Following that interview, the decision was taken not to proceed with his employment.

Mr Ngole subsequently brought claims in the Employment Tribunal including direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.

The ET reached a mixed conclusion. It found that the initial withdrawal of the job offer constituted direct discrimination. However, it concluded that the requirement for Mr Ngole to attend a second interview and the ultimate decision not to employ him were not discriminatory. In reaching its decision, the ET accepted that TL had legitimate concerns about Mr Ngole’s ability to work with vulnerable service users and comply with organisational policies, and that these concerns were not based solely on Mr Ngole’s religious beliefs.

Mr Ngole appealed those aspects of the decision that went against him, arguing that the ET had failed to properly assess the reason for TL’s actions. In particular, Mr Ngole contended that the treatment he received was because of his protected religious beliefs, rather than how those beliefs were expressed, and that TL’s reliance on reputational concerns was, in reality, based on those beliefs.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, identifying a number of errors in the ET’s reasoning and approach.

A central issue in the appeal was whether Mr Ngole had been treated less favourably because of his protected beliefs, or because of the way in which those beliefs had been expressed. The EAT found that the ET had failed to carry out a sufficiently careful analysis of this distinction. It had not clearly identified TL’s reasons for each stage of its decision-making, nor had it properly assessed whether those reasons were separable from Mr Ngole’s beliefs themselves.

The EAT also held that the ET had approached TL’s reasoning too broadly. Rather than treating the decision-making process as a whole, the ET should have examined each stage separately, including the withdrawal of the offer, the requirement to attend a further interview, and the final decision not to employ the claimant.

For each stage, the ET was required to identify the precise reasons for the treatment and determine whether any part of that treatment was because of Mr Ngole’s protected beliefs.

The EAT gave particular attention to TL’s concerns about reputational risk and the potential reaction of service users or third parties. It emphasised that where an employer acts because of how others might react to an individual’s protected belief, this may still amount to direct discrimination. Such reasoning requires careful scrutiny to ensure that it does not, in substance, amount to treatment because of the belief itself.

In light of these errors, the EAT remitted the case back to the ET to reconsider the issues relating to the second interview and the decision not to employ Mr Ngole, applying the correct legal framework.

This case highlights the need to clearly distinguish between a protected belief and the way in which that belief is expressed. While employers may have legitimate concerns about how views are manifested in the workplace, action taken because of the belief itself will be unlawful.

The decision also underlines the importance of identifying and documenting the reasons for each stage of decision-making. A broad or generalised explanation is unlikely to be sufficient; employers should be able to demonstrate a clear, evidence-based rationale for each step.

In addition, reliance on reputational concerns or anticipated third-party reactions carries legal risk. Employers should ensure that such concerns are carefully examined and are not, in effect, a proxy for discrimination.

At the same time, the case confirms that employers are entitled to make reasonable enquiries to assess whether a candidate can fulfil the requirements of a role, particularly where there are safeguarding considerations or organisational values at stake.