Minister of Word and Sacrament: not an employee for unfair dismissal, but an employee for age discrimination
A minister with 19 years' service was found not to be an employee for unfair dismissal purposes, but was an employee under the Equality Act, allowing her age discrimination claim to proceed.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #minister-of-religion
- #office-holder
- #employee-status
- #age-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #stipendiary-minister
Key facts
- The claimant was a Minister of Word and Sacrament in the United Reformed Church from 2002 until 31 July 2021.
- The respondent decided not to extend her ministry beyond age 68, forcing her retirement.
- The claimant was paid a stipend and provided with housing and other benefits under a Settlement Agreement and the Plan for Partnership.
- The claimant had significant autonomy in how she performed her duties but was subject to oversight and disciplinary processes.
- The tribunal found she was not an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996 but was an employee under the Equality Act 2010.
Timeline
-
Induction as Minister
The claimant was inducted as a Minister at Brentwood and Ingatestone.
-
Induction at St Stephen's
The claimant was inducted as Minister of St Stephen's, with scoping including 20% university chaplaincy and 25% Synod Mission Enabler.
-
Initial Caution imposed
The respondent imposed an Initial Caution on the claimant regarding strained relationships in teams.
-
Reduction in scoping
The claimant was informed her role had been merged and her stipend reduced to 75%.
-
Revised Settlement Agreement signed
The claimant signed a revised Settlement Agreement reflecting 75% scoping with 20% chaplaincy.
-
Meeting about extension
A meeting was held to discuss whether the claimant's ministry should be extended beyond age 68.
-
Decision to retire
The claimant was informed she must retire at age 68, with ministry ending on 31 July 2021.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant appealed the retirement decision.
-
Appeal dismissed
An Assembly Commission dismissed the appeal, upholding the retirement decision.
-
Ministry ended
The claimant's ministry ended on her 68th birthday.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a minister of religion was an employee for the purposes of unfair dismissal and age discrimination claims, given the unique relationship between a church and its ministers.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the minister was not an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996, so her unfair dismissal claim was struck out. However, she was an employee under the Equality Act 2010, meaning her age discrimination claim can proceed to a full hearing.
Key reasons:
- The minister had significant autonomy and her role was governed by church doctrine and a Settlement Agreement, not a contract of employment.
- However, for equality law purposes, the economic reality and degree of control meant she was in an employment relationship.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as only preliminary issues were decided.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employment status can differ between different areas of law – being an employee for discrimination purposes does not guarantee the same for unfair dismissal.
- Ministers of religion often fall outside standard employment protections, so check your specific legal status before bringing a claim.
- If you have long service and are forced to retire, age discrimination may still be a viable claim even if you are not an employee for unfair dismissal.
- The church's internal processes and documents, like a Settlement Agreement, may not create an employment contract for statutory purposes.
A minister's status split in two
This case shows how employment status can be a complex and decisive issue for ministers of religion. The claimant, a Minister of Word and Sacrament with 19 years' service, was forced to retire at 68 when the church refused to extend her ministry. She brought claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination, but the church argued she was not an employee at all.
The tribunal had to decide her status separately for each claim. For unfair dismissal, it found she was not an employee under the Employment Rights Act because her role was governed by church doctrine and a Settlement Agreement, not a contract of employment. She had significant autonomy and her relationship with the church was not one of employer and employee in the traditional sense. This meant her unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out.
A different result under equality law
However, for the age discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal reached a different conclusion. It found that the economic reality – she received a stipend, housing, and other benefits – and the degree of control exercised by the church meant she was an employee for equality purposes. This allowed her age discrimination claim to proceed to a full hearing.
The church could have avoided this split outcome by ensuring its processes for retirement decisions were transparent and non-discriminatory. The tribunal noted that the claimant had identified comparators who were given extensions beyond 68, which could support her direct discrimination claim.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment status is not always straightforward, especially for ministers and other religious workers. If you are considering a claim, it is important to check your status under each relevant law. Even if you are not an employee for unfair dismissal, you may still have protection against discrimination. The case also highlights the importance of keeping clear records of any comparators who were treated differently, as this can be crucial in an age discrimination claim.
Similar cases
Dog walker with set hours found to be employee: unfair dismissal and age discrimination win
A dog walker who worked set hours for five years was found to be an employee, not a self-employed contractor, and awarded over £11,700 for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
Taxi driver found to be employee and worker, awarded £5,181 for unlawful deductions
A private hire taxi driver was found to be an employee of the vehicle owner and a worker of the dispatch company. He was awarded £5,181.48 for unlawful deduction of wages, but his age discrimination claim was dismissed.
Unfair dismissal win but no compensation: when a claim succeeds but the loss is zero
A former employee won her unfair dismissal claim against Stonewater Ltd but was awarded no compensation because she suffered no financial loss as a result of the dismissal.
Former employee wins unfair dismissal claim against Asda
A former employee succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against Asda Stores Ltd, but her age discrimination and harassment complaints were dismissed. She was awarded £27,924.06.