A Court of Appeal challenge in London is examining whether a Christian social worker faced discrimination after a Leeds mental health charity withdrew a job offer and required a second interview over his views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The case matters because it sits at the uneasy intersection of religious freedom, LGBT-inclusive services and fair recruitment.

Essential Takeaways

  • The original offer: Felix Ngole was offered a hospital discharge support role, subject to references, after his first interview.
  • Why it was withdrawn: Touchstone Leeds later raised concerns about his publicly expressed Christian beliefs and their possible effect on service users.
  • The legal dispute: An employment tribunal found direct discrimination over the withdrawn offer but rejected other parts of his claim.
  • What happens next: The Court of Appeal is considering whether the case should be decided now or returned for further tribunal consideration.
  • The wider question: Employers must balance protected religious belief with duties to provide respectful, inclusive services.

A job offer became a legal flashpoint

Felix Ngole had already completed an interview and been selected for the hospital discharge mental health support worker position in West Yorkshire. The offer was conditional on references, but Touchstone Leeds withdrew it after finding reports about an earlier legal dispute involving his social work studies.

The earlier case followed Mr Ngole's removal from a University of Sheffield master's course after social media comments, including the statement that “homosexuality is a sin”. He later successfully challenged the university's decision. According to the Yorkshire Post, Touchstone then asked him to address concerns about whether his beliefs could affect his work with LGBT service users.

The dispute is unusually combustible because the role involved vulnerable people. There is a quiet but important difference between holding a belief and behaving in a discriminatory way, and the appeal is testing how employers should treat that difference during recruitment.

Why the second interview matters

Mr Ngole's legal team argues that the additional interview was imposed only after the charity became aware of his religious beliefs. Bruno Quintavalle told the Court of Appeal that this created a requirement that would not have applied to other candidates, describing it as a straightforward example of direct discrimination.

The argument also centres on the job description. Mr Ngole's barrister said it contained no specific LGBT-related duties and that there had been no complaint about his treatment of service users. The written case says the extra interview and requests for assurances were lengthy, intrusive and based on assumptions about what his beliefs might mean in practice.

That distinction will be closely watched by employers. A recruitment process can explore a candidate's ability to meet the duties of a post, but questions become more problematic if they are driven by stereotypes rather than evidence.

Touchstone says the role required active inclusion

Touchstone disputes Mr Ngole's account and is also challenging the earlier appeal ruling. Its case is that the position required more than basic politeness: it involved actively promoting LGBT-specific services and adapting support for LGBT service users.

Katherine Apps KC said the charity was concerned about what it described as a lack of enthusiasm for those duties. She also referred to Mr Ngole's alleged resistance to LGBT awareness training and a possible risk of complaints or legal claims from service users, according to the Yorkshire Post.

The charity further says it searched online because suitable references were unavailable. Its position is that publicly available information raised legitimate questions about whether Mr Ngole would fulfil the role in the way required under its NHS-related contract. For a mental health organisation, confidence and trust aren't abstract values; they're part of the service users' experience.

What the tribunals have decided so far

In 2024, an employment tribunal found that Touchstone had directly discriminated against Mr Ngole when it rescinded the initial offer. However, it rejected claims concerning the second interview and the final decision not to appoint him.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal later concluded that the first tribunal had made errors in its legal analysis of some religious-belief discrimination complaints. The case was sent back for reconsideration, a step both sides have challenged for different reasons. The Government's published judgment records the procedural background to that appeal.

Mr Ngole says returning to the same tribunal would prolong a dispute that has already lasted years. Touchstone, meanwhile, argues that the original tribunal decision should be restored, or that it should have a fair opportunity to defend its position at a fresh hearing. The Court of Appeal's eventual ruling could clarify how direct discrimination claims should be assessed when belief, conduct and job requirements overlap.

A decision with consequences beyond one workplace

The case isn't simply about whether a Christian applicant should have received one particular job. It raises practical questions for charities, NHS contractors and other employers recruiting for public-facing roles.

Employers need to explain the actual duties of a post, apply the same selection standards consistently and distinguish carefully between a candidate's protected belief and any proven conduct. Candidates, too, may be asked how they'll perform duties involving inclusion, dignity and equal access. The strongest process is likely to be specific, evidence-led and free from assumptions.

There is no simple formula here. Service users deserve care that feels safe and respectful, while employees and applicants remain protected from being excluded merely because of their faith. As the judges consider the arguments, many organisations will be looking for guidance that is clear enough to use in the real world, where conversations are rarely as tidy as legal submissions.

It's a small courtroom dispute with a very large workplace question behind it.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: