Discrimination at London’s first gay pub

17 January 2011 by

In its heyday

Lisboa v. Realpubs Ltd & Ors [2011] UKEAT 0224_10_1101 (11 January 2011) – Read judgment

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that a well-known gay pub’s strategy to encourage straight customers led to gay customers being treated less favourably, meaning that the a gay employee was forced to resign.

The policies included seating straight customers at the front of the pub where they would be most visible to passers by. The Claimant was an employee of the well-known London pub the Coleherne. The Coleherne was thought to be the city’s first ‘gay pub’ and had been operating as such for the past forty years, but in September 2008 reopened as a gastro-pub, The Pembroke.

The EAT allowed the Claimant’s appeal from a claim for constructive wrongful dismissal and unlawful sexual orientation discrimination.

In 2008 the pub was in decline and was bought by Realpubs who, known for turning failing pubs into ‘gastro’ pubs, sought to re-launch the pub to appeal to a wider audience.

In November 2008, shortly after Realpubs acquired the Coleherne, the Claimant, an openly gay man, accepted the position of Assistant Manager. He resigned in January 200 and thereafter made a claim for constructive dismissal.

The policy of Realpubs at the time of the Claimant’s employment was to encourage staff to seat customers or groups of customers who did not appear to be gay in prominent places in such a way that they could be seen from outside the pub.

The claim brought by the Claimant was for constructive wrongful dismissal based on two categories of unlawful direct discrimination.

  1. Comments made by the respondents directed towards the claimant on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
  2. That the respondents pursued a course of conduct whereby the claimant was put under pressure to work in and cooperate with a policy of making the pub less welcoming to gay customers.

The Decision at First Instance

The Employment Tribunal found that the comments made by the respondents towards the Claimant were offensive and that the Claimant had suffered detriment and that the comments were made on the grounds of his sexual orientation.

The tribunal rejected, however, the contention that Realpubs’ had instigated a policy of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and that this was unlawful by virtue of regulations 3 & 4 of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. It was found that:

…nothing was done to make the pub unwelcoming to gay customers or less welcoming to gay customers than other patrons. Nor was any instruction given to that effect…The last thing in the minds of its directors was to alienate their established customers…. a reduction in the percentage of gay customers would not have amounted to an exclusion of gay people or less favourable treatment of them, even if some established customers might have disapproved. Rather it would have been the natural fulfilment of the unobjectionable ‘re-positioning’ strategy.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal

Counsel for the Claimant argued that the ET applied a wrong approach. Instead of looking at the overall effect of the Respondents’ implementation of their re-positioning policy on the customers and as a result on the Claimant, as a gay employee, the ET limited themselves to the commercial aim of Realpubs. The correct question for the ET, he argued, should have been to ask whether gay customers would or might reasonably take the view that, as a result of the measures adopted, they were disadvantaged compared with straight customers.

The case on appeal therefore focused on whether or not Realpubs, in their pursuit of widening the appeal of the pub implemented this policy in such a way that gay customers were treated less favourably than straight customers on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The EAT held, however, that the policy of Realpubs to rebrand the Pembroke was not unambiguously discriminatory as had been the case in Wethersfield v Sargent [1999] IRLR 94 (CA) and Showboat Entertainment Centre Ltd v Owens [1984] IRLR 7

Notwithstanding the recognition that this case was nuanced, the EAT ultimately found that:

Based on the factual picture it is, we think, plainly and unarguably the case that gay customers were treated less favourably on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Consequently, on the principles of Showboat and Wethersfield the Claimant was treated less favourably on the grounds of sexual orientation. 

This case was finely balanced but demonstrates that whilst a company’s policy may not in itself be discriminatory against a particular group to the extent that it is unlawful under discrimination law, the way in which that policy is implemented could give rise to a claim for unlawful discrimination.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: