BEYOND BELIEF

Lessons from the EAT in Ngole v Touchstone Leeds
The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in Mr F Ngole v Touchstone Leeds provides timely and important guidance for employers navigating the sensitive and often complex intersection between religion or belief, sexual orientation, social‑media expression, and recruitment decision‑making.

Background

Mr Ngole, a Christian job applicant at the charity Touchstone Leeds, was offered a role as a mental health support worker, subject to references. Touchstone received two factual references and then Googled Mr Ngole discovering historic news articles reporting his removal from a university course following Facebook posts expressing his belief that same‑sex marriage and homosexuality are sinful.

Touchstone withdrew the offer and maintained this position after a further meeting with Mr Ngole.  The decision to withdraw the offer cited concerns that service users might discover the posts, trust could be undermined, and that his views might conflict with the charity’s commitment to supporting LGBTQI+ individuals.

Mr Ngole brought claims of direct religion and belief discrimination, succeeding partially and appealing the remainder.

EAT decision

It was found that the Employment Tribunal had erred in law by failing to analyse each of Touchstone’s reasons for its decisions separately. In particular, the ET had not properly distinguished between concerns linked to:

Mr Ngole’s protected religious beliefs, and

The way those beliefs had been expressed or might impact the role.

A crucial error was the ET’s treatment of Touchstone’s concern that service users might discover historic news stories about the claimant and react negatively. The EAT held that this point required fuller analysis and therefore remitted the relevant aspects of the case (including the further meeting requirement and the failure to reinstate the offer) for reconsideration.

Importantly, the EAT confirmed that employers may explore whether a candidate can meet the demands of a role supporting vulnerable LGBTQ+ service users; that part of Touchstone’s approach was not criticised.

Practical Conclusions

1. Separate Belief from Behaviour/Expression

It is important to distinguish and separate the belief itself (which is protected), and the behaviour/manner of expression or role related risks (which can be legitimately assessed). Tribunals will need to assess those two points separately. 

2. Evidence Based Risk, Not Assumptions

Concerns about reputational risk—such as others reacting negatively to an employee’s beliefs—are rarely enough. HR must identify a clear, evidence based safeguarding or operational concern.

3. Analyse Decisions Separately

Record and justify each step (e.g. withdrawing an offer, holding a further meeting, not reinstating an offer) on its own independent rationale.  Clearly identify the real reason for the treatment and how it is separable from the belief.

4. Robust Documentation

Detailed written reasoning improves legal defensibility. If decisions are challenged, contemporaneous notes are critical in showing the reasoning was belief neutral and proportionate.

The direction from the EAT—building on the earlier Higgs and Forstater decisions—is clear: employers must base their actions on evidence‑based, role‑specific risks, rather than assumptions about an individual’s beliefs. In cases of this kind, the decision‑making process itself, along with the quality of the record‑keeping, often proves decisive.