Case law update: F Ngole v Touchstone Leeds [2026] EAT 29

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has this month handed down its judgment in Mr F Ngole v Touchstone Leeds [2026] EAT 29, overturning parts of a 2024 Employment Tribunal decision and clarifying the legal approach to direct discrimination claims grounded in religion or belief.

The appellant, Mr F Ngole, a qualified Christian social worker, had applied for a discharge mental health support worker role at the mental health charity Touchstone Leeds in 2022 and was initially offered the position subject to references.

After difficulties obtaining satisfactory references, the charity carried out an online search of Mr Ngole’s background and found media coverage of his prior legal dispute with the University of Sheffield, in which he had successfully challenged his removal from a social work course following Facebook posts describing homosexuality and same-sex marriage as sinful.

On discovering this material, Touchstone withdrew its conditional offer and subsequently invited Mr Ngole to a second interview, after which it decided not to reinstate the offer.

Mr Ngole brought multiple claims under the Equality Act 2010, including direct discrimination because of religion or belief.

The original Employment Tribunal found that the withdrawal of the initial job offer amounted to direct discrimination but dismissed other claims relating to the second interview and ultimate decision not to appoint him.

The EAT held that the Employment Tribunal had erred in law in its analysis of certain aspects of the direct discrimination complaints, particularly in failing to properly separate and scrutinise the reasons for Touchstone’s decisions. The EAT emphasised that an employer cannot lawfully take adverse action simply because third parties might object to an individual’s protected beliefs; the critical question is whether the employer’s concern was based on the protected beliefs themselves or on the way those beliefs were manifested or expressed, and whether any such concern could be justified. Because the Employment Tribunal had not sufficiently analysed Touchstone’s reasoning, especially regarding fears that service users or staff might discover Mr Ngole’s past statements, certain aspects of the case, including the requirement for a second interview and the refusal to reinstate the offer, were remitted for further consideration. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The EAT’s judgment reinforces the need for tribunals to undertake detailed, separate analyses of each alleged discriminatory act by an employer, ensuring that objections to an applicant’s protected beliefs are not conflated with objections to the manner in which those beliefs are expressed. It also underlines that even where an employer’s objectives, such as protecting service users from distress, are legitimate, withdrawing a job offer without appropriate engagement with the candidate may go beyond what is necessary and lawful under the Equality Act framework.

If you need advice on discrimination risks in recruitment, contact our employment law team.

This article was written by Gabrielle Scriven.