Under the Equality Act 2010, individuals are protected from discrimination based on certain "protected characteristics," including religion and philosophical beliefs. For a belief to be protected under the Act, it must meet specific criteria established in Grainger Plc and ors v Nicholson [2010] IRLR 4, EAT. These criteria include that the belief must be genuinely held, concern a substantial aspect of human life, attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance, and be compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. The belief must also be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
Case analysis: Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
In the case of Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) examined whether a belief in English nationalism, including anti-Islamic views, could be considered a protected philosophical belief. Mr. Thomas argued that his belief in English nationalism was focused on preserving English culture and identity, which he claimed was a significant aspect of his personal and political life. However, the Employment Tribunal found that Mr. Thomas' beliefs extended beyond this, including anti-Muslim and anti-migrant sentiments, which included proposals for the forcible removal of all Muslims from the United Kingdom. These views were found to be in direct conflict with the fundamental rights of others, particularly the right to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination.
Employment Tribunal and EAT Decisions
The Employment Tribunal ruled that Mr. Thomas' beliefs did not meet the necessary criteria for protection under the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal emphasised that while some political beliefs, including those related to nationalism, could potentially be protected, the promotion of ideas that violate the human rights of others - such as advocating for the forcible removal of certain ethnic or religious groups - would not qualify for protection. The EAT upheld this decision, emphasising that the belief must be "worthy of respect in a democratic society" and must not infringe upon the fundamental rights of others. The EAT concluded that Mr. Thomas' anti-Islamic rhetoric violated these principles and could not be protected under the guise of philosophical belief.
Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The EAT referred to Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits the abuse of human rights protections to undermine the rights of others. The EAT concluded that Mr. Thomas' anti-Islamic beliefs crossed into the realm of hate speech, which is not protected under either the ECHR or the Equality Act 2010. This decision illustrates the crucial distinction between beliefs in political doctrines and hate speech. While political beliefs, including those rooted in nationalism, can be protected, the promotion of ideas that violate the human rights of others will not qualify for protection.
Additional considerations
The case of Higgs v Farmor’s School also provides relevant insights. In this case, the Employment Tribunal had to determine whether the claimant's actions amounted to a manifestation of her beliefs. The Tribunal emphasised that any restriction placed on a manifestation of beliefs must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary in a democratic society. This case highlights the importance of balancing the protection of different protected characteristics and ensuring that the expression of beliefs does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others.
In summary, while political beliefs, including those related to nationalism, can be protected under the Equality Act 2010, this protection has limits. Beliefs that promote hate speech or violate the fundamental rights of others, such as anti-Islamic views advocating for the forcible removal of Muslims, will not qualify for protection. Employers should be aware of these distinctions and ensure that their policies and practices align with the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
This article was generated using Lex HR, an AI tool designed to assist HR professionals with employment law. If you find the content helpful, please explore Lex HR and sign up for a free trial to see how it can benefit your HR practices.
