There have been a number of surprising decisions over the past few years on the subject of what may constitute a protected belief under the Equality Act. In the latest of these cases, the EAT held that a profound belief in the proper and efficient use of public money in the public sector was potentially capable of being a protected belief.
Background
Under the Equality Act 2010, workers and job applicants are protected from discrimination because of religion and belief – whether their own or someone else’s. Religious discrimination is usually easy to identify and avoid; however, where someone has a strongly held philosophical belief which impacts on the workplace, the risk of discrimination is less easy to manage.
The problem is that the scope of what can constitute a protected belief is extremely wide. Tribunals have held that a political belief in “democratic socialism”, as enshrined by the Labour Party’s core values, a belief in environmentalism and climate change, a belief in the sanctity of life, extending to a fervent anti-fox hunting and anti-hare coursing belief, a belief in the “higher purpose” of public service broadcasting to encourage debate and citizenship in a public space, a belief that public service and the need to engender in others a desire and commitment to serve the community for the common good, a belief that “it is wrong to lie under any circumstances”, and a belief in spiritualism, life after death and the ability of mediums to contact the dead are all beliefs capable of falling within the protection afforded by the Equality Act.
The key components for protection (as set out by the EAT in the case of Grainger Plc v Nicholson) are that the belief is genuinely held, it is a belief rather than a mere opinion, it must relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour and attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
Facts
In the case of Harron v Dorset Police Authority, the claimant, a Wide Load Clerk who suffers from bipolar disorder and OCD, met with his line manager on a regular basis to discuss his frustrations about his employer’s waste of public money and a lack of support from the personnel department. He also wrote to his employer on several occasions to make suggestions as to how public money could be saved. He met with a negative response to his concerns and alleged discrimination. At the time of the Tribunal proceedings, the claimant was on long-term sick leave.
As a preliminary issue, the Employment Tribunal was asked to consider whether the claimant’s belief in the proper and efficient use of public money in the public sector was potentially capable of being a protected belief. The Tribunal found that it was not on the basis that it lacked the status and cogency of a religious belief and was little more than a set of values which manifested themselves as an objective principally operating in the workplace. The Tribunal also noted the possibility of a link between the claimant’s mental illness and the way he expressed his belief in the workplace, although it did not make any
EAT Decision
The EAT, however, found the Tribunal’s reasoning unsatisfactory and held that there was nothing about the claimant’s belief which prohibited it from being a protected philosophical belief. The Tribunal had potentially set the bar too high. The EAT sent the case back to the Tribunal to reconsider its decision.
The EAT has provided sufficient guidance about the correct approach to take to enable the Tribunal to reach the same conclusion on a more soundly reasoned basis so it is highly unlikely that the
Harron v Dorset Police Authority [2016] UKEAT 0234/15
