B Dybowski v The Bishop of Llandaff Church In Wales High School & Anor

AGREED LIST OF ISSUES

1. Protected beliefs 1.1. It is the Claimant’s case that he holds the following beliefs which he contends are both religious and philosophical beliefs within the meaning of s.10 EqA: 1.1.1. A belief in Biblical marriage or a lack of belief in same sex marriage (whilst recognising that same sex marriage is legal, he believes this is contrary to Biblical teaching); 1.1.2. Human life must be respected and protected from the moment of conception. Abortion is gravely contrary to the moral law; 1.1.3. Being critical of aspects of sharia law, for example that homosexual acts should be severely punished; and 1.1.4. A belief that sex is fixed or i) a lack of belief that someone can change their biological sex and/or gender and ii) a lack of belief in gender fluidity. The Belief in the Bible Genesis 1.27. 1.2. Are these beliefs protected under s.10 EqA? In particular, in relation to each of the above beliefs: 1.2.1. Was the belief held by the Claimant at the relevant time? 1.2.2. Did the belief constitute a belief which amount to more than an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available? 1.2.3. Was the belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour? 1.2.4. Did the belief have a sufficient level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance? and 1.2.5. Was the belief worthy of respect in a democratic society? 1.3. To the extent that the above beliefs are a protected belief, did the Respondents know that they were held by the Claimant? 1.4. Alternatively, did the Respondents perceive the Claimant to have the above beliefs (to the extent that the Claimant did not in fact hold them)?

2. Manifestation of belief 2.1. Did the Claimant manifest the above beliefs at a Diverse Cymru Training 23rd March 2023 conducted by the First Respondent on 23rd March 2023 and / or during his meeting with the First Respondent’s Headteacher, Mr Belli, on 24th March 2023?

3. Respondents’ position regarding Claimant’s contended for beliefs 3.1. The First Respondent accepts that the Claimant’s stated beliefs are capable of being protected under s.10 EqA as religious or philosophical beliefs with the exception of paragraph 1.1.3 which is not understood. 3.2 The Second Respondent accepts that some of the beliefs on which the Claimant relies may considered to a protected belief.

4. Harassment related to religion and / or belief (Equality Act 2010 section 26) Alleged unwanted conduct Did the First Respondent do the following things: 4.1.1. On 24 March 2023, Marc Belli told the Claimant that he did not want him to express the beliefs mentioned during the Diverse Cymru Training on 23 March 2023 whilst working at the Respondent; and 4.1.2. On 24 March 2023, Marc Belli told the Claimant that he did not want him to express the beliefs mentioned during the Diverse Cymru Training on 23 March 2023 in his private life on social media; and 4.1.3. On 24 March 2023, Marc Belli told the Claimant he would report him to the Educational Workforce Council (“EWC”) as he thought the Claimant’s views made him unsafe to work with young people; and 4.1.4. On 24 March 2023, Marc Belli requested that the Second Respondent report the Claimant to the EWC; and 4.1.5. On 24 March 2023 instruct the Second Respondent to terminate the Claimant’s engagement with the first Respondent and escorted the Claimant from the school; and 4.1.6. On 3 July 2023, Kathryn Bates sent a letter to parents / carers containing discriminatory and untrue comments about the Claimant including that he had used highly charged language that cased offence, one of the beliefs expressed by the Claimant had been unlawful and that the Claimant had planned to discuss with pupils a range of inappropriate topics. 4.2. Did the Second Respondent do the following things: 4.3. On 24 March 2023 refer the Claimant to EWC for being unsafe to work in education and ; 4.4. On 25 May 2023 dismiss the Claimant? 4.5. If so, was that unwanted conduct? 4.6. Did it relate to the Claimant’s protected beliefs or was it for a non-discriminatory reason including, inter alia, that he conducted himself in the workplace a manner which was deliberately controversial, divisive, and provocative, without regard for his colleagues, and with a lack of professionalism.

5. Direct religion / belief discrimination (Equality Act 2010 section 13) 5.1. The Claimant is a Christian with Catholic beliefs. 5.2. Did the Respondents do the following things: 5.2.1. The Claimant relies upon the same acts as the harassment claim set out above, with the exception of his referral to EWC at 4.1.4 and 4.3 above. 5.3. Was that less favourable treatment? The Tribunal will decide whether the Claimant was treated worse than a comparator whose circumstances (other than the protected beliefs) were not materially different to his own. If there was nobody in the same circumstances as the Claimant, the Tribunal will decide whether the Claimant was treated worse than someone else would have been treated. The Claimant has not named anyone in particular who he says was treated better than he was. 5.4. If so, was it because of the Claimant’s protected beliefs or his manifestation of the same or was it for a non-discriminatory reason including, inter alia, that he conducted himself in the workplace a manner which was deliberately controversial, divisive, and provocative, without regard for his colleagues, and with a lack of professionalism? 5.4.1. If the treatment was because of a manifestation of the Claimant’s protected beliefs, was the Claimant’s manifestation of his beliefs an objectionable manifestation, such that the Respondents can show that the treatment was a necessary means of protecting the rights and freedoms of others?