Briefing: the Jeremy Pemberton Employment Tribunal Case

This invitee post by Peter Ould explains what is at stake in the Jeremy Pemberton Employment Tribunal Case.

What is happening?

The Revd Jeremy Pemberton is taking the Archbishop of York and Bishop Richard Inwood (who was the acting Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham) to an Employment Tribunal over the refusal of Bishop Richard to grant Mr Pemberton a licence. Jeremy Pemberton was offered a chore with the Sherwood Woods Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust equally a Chaplaincy Manager, just the NHS terms of employment required the appointee to hold a formal denomination'southward recommendation.

Why was Jeremy Pemberton refused a licence?

In April 2014, Jeremy Pemberton became the start Church of England priest to enter a same-sex matrimony (the but other known priest to practise and so is Andrew Foreshaw-Cain of W Hampstead, London). On the grounds that entering into a aforementioned-sex activity union was against Church of England doctrine, the Acting Bishop of Southwell withdrew his PTO (Permission to Officiate). When a licence was requested for Jeremy Pemberton for the Sherwood Forest position, that licence was refused. [Note: Permission to Officiate has no legal continuing, and is in the gift of the diocesan bishop. It tin can exist removed without any particular procedure. A licence is much closer to the status of employment. Information technology indicates that clergy are in good standing; once given, information technology cannot be removed without due procedure, though at that place is no necessary procedure needed to refuse a licence.] Information technology is claimed that Bishop Richard fabricated this decision in conjunction with John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York (given that the Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham was in vacancy and the thing was of some importance).

On what grounds is Jeremy Pemberton taking this affair to an Employment Tribunal?

The Equality Act 2010 makes marital status a protected feature. Jeremy Pemberton claims that since the licence was refused on the grounds of his marital status, the Church building of England acted unlawfully in refusing to grant it. He makes this claim against Bishop Richard Inwood and Archbishop John Sentamu.

Does he have a case?

That's debatable for the following reasons.

Beginning, it is unclear that information technology is the Bishops' fault that Jeremy Pemberton did not go the task. The constabulary of England and Wales does not require the NHS to demand that its chaplains hold accreditation from a recognised denomination, so the decision to crave a licence is the choice of the NHS Trust, not the Church of England. In this sense information technology is arguable that Pemberton is taking the wrong institution to tribunal.

On the other hand, Pemberton claims that at that place is a level of inconsistency between his treatment in Southwell Diocese (removal of PTO and refusal to grant a licence) and that in Lincoln Diocese where Pemberton is currently working equally a hospital chaplain. In that Diocese Pemberton was given an admonition by his Bishop simply his accreditation was not removed. Pemberton may very well claim that for the Church building of England'due south determination to have whatever credibility, it must be implemented consistently. Of form, in practice each Diocese is structurally legally independent of every other diocese, so it volition be interesting to see how this argument pans out.

3rd, there is an exemption in the Equality Act which allows a religious organisation to discriminate on the grounds of marriage if such a discrimination is due to the doctrines of the organized religion (or would offend a big proportion of the membership of the religion). On that basis it looks as though the Bishops are home and dry out before the hearing begins. There is, however, a subtlety in the constabulary in that the exemption tin either be on the requirement to be married or related to sexual orientation. Clearly Church of England clergy *can* exist married, just not to someone of the same-sexual activity. Does the constabulary read to allow this? If not, can the exemption be made on a thing related to sexual orientation? If so, does that mean that the Church of England agrees with the Asher Block ruling that same-sexual activity marriage is a "gay" establishment?

What are the implications for the Church building of England?

If the Tribunal rules in favour of the Bishops then it volition plant clearly that the practice of dealing with clergy in a same-sex activity spousal relationship with a formal admonition and then a refusal to provide a licence for any future position is valid. It will shore upwardly the doctrine of spousal relationship in the Church (at least in the curt-term) though information technology might besides lead to questions in General Synod on the effect and pressure for a debate. The Business Committee is fugitive whatsoever such formal contend till afterwards the Shared Conversation process is over, but events might overtake them.

If the Tribunal rules in favour of Pemberton, so it means that the Church building of England no longer has control over the reasons why clergy may or not minister with their Bishop's authorization. Nosotros would have a situation where the Monarch'due south court declares illegal the enforcement inside the Church building of doctrines that the Monarch herself has sworn to uphold. It'south difficult to run into how such a contradiction can be sustained in the long term.

When volition we know the concluding outcome?

Although the Tribunal hearing is this week, the outcome volition probably not be published for at least a month if non longer. When it is finally released, beware of headline summaries and instead try to read the full text every bit it'due south very likely there will exist some subtleties in the ruling.

Will the ruling be appealed?

Whichever side loses, because of the issues at stake it's likely that the example will go to a higher court.

What can I do?

Pray for all those involved. Whichever side you have, this is an exhausting and emotional experience for all. For Jeremy Pemberton and his husband Laurence Cunnington this is a case almost their personal lives and choices which volition be judged by strangers. For Bishop Inwood this is a complexity that he was probably hoping to avoid in retirement. For Archbishop Sentamu and other senior church leaders (information technology is very likely that the national Church is advising on the legal defence as information technology will affect every diocese in the land) this is a key moment in the living out corporately of their policy on this effect.

---

Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you take valued this post, would y'all consideraltruistic £1.20 a calendar month to support the production of this blog?

If yous enjoyed this, practice share information technology on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.

Much of my work is washed on a freelance ground. If you have valued this post, yous tin make a single or echo donation through PayPal:

Comments policy: Proficient comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful fence, tin add existent value. Seek commencement to understand, then to be understood. Brand the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to larn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a disharmonize to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.

smithsciusurturs1943.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/briefing-the-jeremy-pemberton-employment-tribunal-case/