In Grace v Places for Children, Grace (G) was dismissed for gross misconduct for behaving inappropriately towards other members of staff. G had held an unauthorised training session, giving rise to some complaints from attendees; G’s reaction to a pregnant colleague’s recounting of a dream had left that colleague extremely scared, believing she would suffer a miscarriage; and she told another colleague that something was going to happen in the nursery which would have a massive ripple effect, which left colleagues uneasy.

G claimed that she had been directly discriminated against because of religion, alleging that references had been made about Bible sessions being held contrary to company policy and holding unsuitable conversations with colleagues about God. The tribunal rejected G’s claim. The employer’s evidence confirmed a belief that G had blurred the boundaries between her work and non-work-related matters, which had an adverse effect on the well-being of staff. The tribunal concluded that G was not treated as she was because of her religion, but because of the way in which she manifested or shared it. G appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. If the tribunal’s reasoning was to be read as drawing a clear dividing line between holding a belief and manifesting it, the former prohibiting unfair detriment, the latter permitting it, then it could not stand. But the Tribunal had been careful to say that G was not treated as she was because of her religion, but because of the way in which she manifested or shared it. In doing so, the tribunal had found that G had been dismissed, not because she had manifested her religion, but because she had manifested it in a way which was inappropriate and which upset her colleagues. Dismissal was not because of religion, but because of G’s inappropriate behaviour.