Tomorrow, a Christian social worker who won a landmark freedom of speech case at the Court of Appeal in 2019 will return to the same court in what is believed to be the first time an individual has fought two separate Court of Appeal cases arising from professional penalties imposed because of the expression of Christian beliefs.
Felix Ngole, who has been supported by the Christian Legal Centre since 2014, is a qualified social worker, will appear before the Court of Appeal from 10am on Monday 28 September, with the hearing continuing on Tuesday 29 September 2026. Felix will be able for interview from 9.00am and there will be a visual display from supporters outside the Royal Courts of Justice.
The hearing is the latest stage in a long-running legal battle after mental health charity Touchstone Leeds withdrew a conditional offer of employment when it discovered online reports of Mr Ngole’s Christian beliefs on marriage and sexuality.
In a case of clear viewpoint discrimination, Mr Ngole was subsequently found by an Employment Tribunal to have been directly discriminated against because of his Christian faith when the offer was initially withdrawn. Nonetheless,, the Tribunal went on to conclude that Touchstone was entitled to bring him back in to a second interview and at that point refuse to reinstate him.
In February 2026, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that important parts of the Employment Tribunal’s reasoning were legally flawed. It held that the Tribunal had failed properly to identify and analyse the reasons why Touchstone required a second interview and ultimately refused to reinstate the offer.
Despite that finding, the Employment Appeal Tribunal directed that the disputed issues should be sent back to the same Employment Tribunal, with the same panel, for reconsideration rather than simply finding in favour of Felix and ordering reinstatement.
Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, Mr Ngole is now asking the Court of Appeal to rule that the established facts already demonstrate direct discrimination and that he should not be required to undergo another Employment Tribunal hearing.
The appeal also argues that, if the case must be reconsidered, it should not be returned to the same Tribunal whose reasoning was found to be legally flawed.
A second potentially landmark Court of Appeal case
The case marks Mr Ngole’s second appearance before the Court of Appeal in litigation concerning punishment for expressing orthodox Christian beliefs.
In 2019, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, he won a landmark case against the University of Sheffield after he had been removed from a social work course and declared unfit to practise because of comments he made during a Facebook debate.
The Court of Appeal held in that case that the university had wrongly confused the expression of religious views with discrimination. It stated:
“The mere expression of religious views about sin does not necessarily connote discrimination.”
The court also recognised that there was positive evidence that Mr Ngole had never discriminated against anyone because of their sexuality and was unlikely to do so.
After being reinstated, completing his training and qualifying as a social worker, Mr Ngole applied in April 2022 for a position as a hospital discharge mental health support worker with Touchstone. The role involved helping people experiencing mental health problems to reintegrate into society after leaving hospital.
On 10 May 2022, Mr Ngole was interviewed and assessed as the best candidate. He was offered the position subject to satisfactory references.
Touchstone subsequently conducted an internet search and discovered BBC and Guardian reports about his earlier case against the University of Sheffield. Those reports referred to comments Mr Ngole had made years previously expressing Christian beliefs concerning marriage, sexuality and same-sex relationships.
On 10 June 2022, Touchstone withdrew the job offer. In subsequent correspondence, the charity told Mr Ngole that his views went “completely against” those of an organisation committed to “actively promoting and supporting LGBTQ+ rights”.
Touchstone offered to reconsider the decision if Mr Ngole provided assurances about how he would perform the role. He was therefore required to attend a second interview dealing specifically with his beliefs.
Following that interview, Touchstone refused to reinstate the job offer. Its stated reasons included a concern that service users might discover Mr Ngole’s historic comments online, find them upsetting or offensive and experience an adverse effect on their mental health.
Employment Tribunal reaches contradictory conclusions
Mr Ngole brought proceedings against Touchstone under the Equality Act 2010.
The Employment Tribunal found that Touchstone had directly discriminated against him because of his Christian faithwhen it initially withdrew the job offer without giving him an opportunity to respond.
However, in what Mr Ngole’s legal team argues was a contradictory decision, the Tribunal also concluded that Touchstone had been entitled to bring him back for a second interview and then remove the job offer.
The Tribunal accepted that Mr Ngole’s Christian beliefs were a material reason for his treatment, but nevertheless concluded that Touchstone’s subsequent actions were justified.
During the proceedings, Touchstone relied on anticipated harm to service users who might discover Mr Ngole’s Christian beliefs online. The case included argument about “Minority Stress Theory”, the proposition that people belonging to sexual or other minority groups may experience additional psychological distress or suicidality through exposure to Christian beliefs on human sexuality.
Mr Ngole’s legal team submitted expert evidence to show that there was no evidence to prove this.
A lay member of the original Employment Tribunal panel was also recused during the proceedings after the Tribunal concluded that there was a real possibility of bias.
Mr Ngole appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the original Tribunal had failed properly to analyse Touchstone’s reasons for requiring the second interview and refusing to reinstate the offer.
It held that the Tribunal had identified different possible concerns but had wrongly elided, or combined, them rather than examining each reason separately.
Those concerns included whether Mr Ngole would support service users appropriately in his professional work; whether he had provided sufficient assurances during the second interview; and whether service users or staff might discover historic online reports concerning his Christian beliefs.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal recognised that if Touchstone’s concern was simply that service users might react negatively to the fact that Mr Ngole held protected Christian beliefs, the resulting treatment would be because of those beliefs and would not be capable of justification.
However, rather than determining the discrimination claim in Mr Ngole’s favour, it ordered the Employment Tribunal to reconsider the reasons for the second interview and the subsequent refusal to reinstate the job offer.
What Felix Ngole is asking the Court of Appeal to decide
Mr Ngole’s appeal advances two principal grounds.
The first ground argues that the Employment Appeal Tribunal was wrong to send the case back for another hearing because, on the factual findings already made, unlawful direct discrimination had been established.
This argument has three central parts.
Mr Ngole’s legal team argues that Touchstone interviewed him, determined that he was the best candidate and offered him the job. He was required to undergo an additional and more intrusive interview only after Touchstone discovered that he held orthodox Christian beliefs.
According to the appeal, Touchstone had no evidence that Mr Ngole had discriminated, would discriminate or would fail to perform his professional duties properly.
The appeal argues that requiring special assurances from Mr Ngole after discovering his beliefs treated him as inherently more likely to discriminate or behave inappropriately simply because he was a Christian who held traditional beliefs about marriage and sexuality.
His lawyers submit that this constituted unlawful stereotyping and therefore direct discrimination. They argue that Mr Ngole was not asking for special treatment, but to be treated like every other applicant and assessed on his individual conduct and professional record.
The appeal compares the principle with existing discrimination law holding that individuals cannot lawfully be subjected to additional scrutiny merely because they possess a protected characteristic, even if the person responsible believes that the additional questioning serves a legitimate purpose.
Nothing lawfully objectionable about his beliefs
The appeal also considers when an employer may distinguish between a protected belief and the way that belief has been expressed.
Mr Ngole’s case relies on the Court of Appeal’s 2025 judgment in Higgs v Farmor’s School. It argues that detrimental treatment may be lawful only where there is something objectively objectionable about the way a protected belief has been manifested and where the employer’s response is proportionate.
His lawyers argue that there was nothing objectively objectionable about Mr Ngole’s historic expression of his beliefs. The comments were made years before he applied to Touchstone, outside the workplace, in the context of public debate and without any connection to Touchstone or its service users.
They submit that the question is not whether Touchstone or a hypothetical service user might subjectively dislike or be offended by the beliefs. The court must determine objectively whether the manner of expression was objectionable.
The appeal argues that disagreement with, or offence at, the Christian belief itself cannot transform that belief into professional misconduct and cannot justify exclusion from employment.
Wrong to return to employment tribunal
The third part of the first ground argues that both the documentary evidence and the Employment Tribunal’s findings show that Mr Ngole’s protected Christian beliefs materially influenced Touchstone’s refusal to reinstate the offer.
His lawyers argue that, under established discrimination law, a protected characteristic does not have to be the sole or principal reason for detrimental treatment. If it had a significant or material influence on the decision, direct discrimination is established.
The appeal therefore submits that it was unnecessary to return the case to determine precisely how much weight Touchstone gave to each of its stated reasons. Once Mr Ngole’s beliefs were found to be a material reason for the decision, his legal team argues, the courts should have found in his favour.
Mr Ngole’s second ground applies if the Court of Appeal decides that some part of the case must still be reconsidered by an Employment Tribunal.
He argues that it would be wrong to return the case to the same Tribunal.
His legal team submits that the original Tribunal did not merely omit a small part of its reasoning. Rather, it fully considered the issues but applied the wrong approach to central questions of fact and law.
The appeal argues that the errors identified by the Employment Appeal Tribunal were sufficiently fundamental to undermine confidence in the same panel reconsidering its earlier conclusions.
It also points to the passage of time. By the time of any further hearing, several years will have passed since the Tribunal heard the original evidence. Mr Ngole’s legal team argues that returning the matter to the same panel would save little or no time and could create the appearance that the Tribunal was reconstructing its previous reasoning rather than approaching the issues afresh.
Wider implications for Christian freedom
The appeal will ask the Court of Appeal to clarify whether employers may subject Christians to additional vetting, demands for reassurance or exclusion from employment because of assumptions about how their protected beliefs might affect others.
Mr Ngole’s legal team will argue that the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s approach risks producing a chilling effect far beyond this particular dispute.
They contend that, if allowed to stand, the decision could encourage employers to investigate applicants’ historic speech, require those with controversial but legally protected beliefs to undergo additional questioning, and deny them work because customers or service users might object to discovering those beliefs online.
The case raises significant questions about freedom of religion and freedom of expression in professional life; the protection against direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010; whether anticipated offence or speculative reputational damage can justify excluding a Christian from employment and whether an employer may assume that a person who holds orthodox Christian beliefs is less capable of treating LGBTQI+ service users fairly.
Felix Ngole: “This is about Christian freedom”
Ahead of the hearing, Felix Ngole said:
“In 2019, the Court of Appeal ruled that the expression of Christian beliefs must not be confused with discrimination. That judgment allowed me to complete my training and qualify for a profession to which I felt called.
“Yet after working so hard to rebuild my career, I was offered a job and then lost it when the employer discovered reports of that very Court of Appeal victory and my Christian beliefs about marriage.
“I have supported vulnerable people from many different backgrounds throughout my professional life. There has never been any evidence that I have discriminated against anyone or treated anyone without dignity and respect.
“I should not have been subjected to an additional interview based on an assumption that holding orthodox Christian beliefs made me a potential danger to service users or unable to do the job. I had already been interviewed, assessed as the best candidate and offered the position.
“I am grateful that the Employment Appeal Tribunal recognised serious flaws in the original judgment. But after years of litigation, it cannot be right to send me back to the same Tribunal to fight the central issues all over again.
“I am determined to pursue this appeal and seek a clear and lasting precedent for Christian freedom. I do not want another employer to see this case as permission to treat Christians as a risk to the public, or to demand that they abandon, conceal or apologise for lawful beliefs before they can work.
“No one should be forced out of a career because their biblical beliefs are known. I hope the Court of Appeal will bring this long process to an end and affirm that Christians must be assessed according to their conduct and professional ability, not according to stereotypes about their faith.”
“The work of justice must be completed”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Felix Ngole now stands on the threshold of making legal history for a second time.
“He won an important Court of Appeal victory in 2019 which established that expressing Christian beliefs does not mean that a person will discriminate. Yet the consequence of that very victory was that a prospective employer discovered his beliefs online, withdrew a job he had already been offered and subjected him to an intrusive second interview.
“Felix was the best candidate. He had successfully completed the proper interview process. There was no evidence that he had ever discriminated against anyone or would fail to care professionally and compassionately for every service user.
“The additional scrutiny began for one reason: Touchstone discovered his Christian beliefs about marriage and sexuality. Instead of treating Felix as an individual and looking at his impeccable professional conduct, the organisation treated him as a potential risk because of assumptions attached to his faith.
“It is untenable for Christians to be told that their beliefs are protected in theory while employers remain free to interrogate, exclude or penalise them because someone might discover those beliefs and take offence.
“If that principle is allowed to take hold, no Christian who expresses biblical beliefs in public can have confidence that an internet search will not be used against them years later. It would impose an unofficial religious test for entry into public-facing professions.
“Felix should not be forced through another hearing before the same Tribunal after the fundamental flaws in its approach have been identified. Prolonging this litigation adds to the injustice he has already experienced.
“We will stand with Felix until the work of justice is complete. We hope the Court of Appeal will make clear that employers must not stereotype Christians, speculative offence cannot displace fundamental freedoms, and no one should be barred from work because they believe that marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman.”
ENDS
Hearing details
When: from 10.00am Monday 28 to Tuesday 29 September
Where: Court of Appeal, Royal Courts of Justice, London
Visual display: Before the hearing begins on Monday 28th, Mr Ngole will be joined outside of the of Royal Courts by Christian Legal Centre clients who have faced similar situations for expressing their faith. There will be visual banners and placards.
Access: in-person in Court 67 and also will be streamed LIVE on YouTube on this link https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpJV9uZTiYe2Vh1yA7sO76A