According to the Manchester Tribunal supporting Brexit is not a philosophical belief
28th November, 2024
In a recent Employment Tribunal case, the Manchester Tribunal has held that supporting Brexit is not a philosophical belief under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 ("EqA 2010").
As a reminder, the term “philosophical belief” is not defined under the EqA 2010. The leading case which sets out the criteria for a philosophical belief is Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] which requires the following:
- The belief must be genuinely held.
- It must be a belief, not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
- It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
- It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
- It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
Facts
In this case, the claimant was employed by the respondent from October 2022 until she was dismissed in July 2023.
When the claimant was initially interviewed for the role, she informed the respondent that she had been a local councillor, although she did not identify the political party with which she was affiliated. The claimant was a member of the UK Independence Party (“UKIP”), and a local councillor for that party between around 2017 and 2019.
The claimant alleged that difficulties arose from around February 2023 when a colleague notified her manager that the claimant had been a UKIP councillor. The claimant alleged that she was bullied and harassed by the respondent in relation to her membership of UKIP. The claimant was later dismissed by the respondent in July 2023 for sharing offensive posts about immigrants on a social media platform (which the claimant denied).
The claimant subsequently brought a claim against the respondent which alleged discrimination on grounds of religion / belief. The claimant’s principal complaint was that she had been subject to detrimental treatment and ultimately dismissed by the respondent because of her membership of UKIP.
In the claimant’s particulars of claim, the claimant referred to being a counsellor for UKIP and alleged that she had been discriminated against because of her “political beliefs”. The claimant stated that she had beliefs regarding Britain leaving its membership of the EU and cessation of illegal migration, which were beliefs that aligned with UKIP’s values.
At the outset of the hearing, the tribunal explained that membership of a political party was not, in itself, likely to be regarded as a philosophical belief and asked the claimant to precisely identify the philosophical belief which she sought to rely upon. The claimant confirmed that this included a belief that the UK should be outside of the EU, an opposition to illegal migration, her opposition to the Halal slaughter of animals and that she was happy to leave the ECHR.
Decision
The first question that the tribunal considered was whether the beliefs the claimant relied upon were genuinely held. The tribunal concluded that the claimant had provided sufficient evidence to convince the tribunal that the claimant’s views were genuinely held and therefore the first stage of the Grainger test was satisfied.
However, the key question the tribunal considered was whether the claimant’s views amounted to philosophical beliefs and not an opinion or viewpoint. In the claimant’s evidence, and her pleaded case, the claimant consistently referred to “political beliefs” and her membership of UKIP and did not reference any specific philosophical belief.
At the hearing, the tribunal made it clear that there had to be a distinction between a philosophical belief and a strongly held opinion and that while support of a political party (in this case UKIP) was unlikely to amount to a protected characteristic of philosophical belief, a belief in a political philosophy or doctrine, could still qualify.
On balance and after hearing the claimant’s evidence, the tribunal found that the claimant had not demonstrated that she had any underlying philosophical belief. The Tribunal specifically stated that “it cannot be sufficient for a claimant to arrive at a hearing and outline four opinions, however genuinely held, and expect these to be accepted as philosophical beliefs. Nor is membership of a political party enough, in itself, to amount to a philosophical belief”.
The Tribunal also stated that there are some philosophical beliefs which may have underpinned the claimant’s views, and which may have led her to join UKIP; however, none were put forward by the claimant and therefore her claim was dismissed.
Takeaway
Whilst cases such as this are very fact-specific and depend on the particular beliefs of the individual, it is still a useful reminder of the criteria individuals must meet when seeking to rely on a philosophical belief under the EqA 2010. The case also highlights that there has to be a distinction between a philosophical belief and a strongly held opinion and that the onus is on the claimant to prove this. The tribunal made it clear that “if wanting to leave the EU” was held to be a philosophical belief, then more than half the British electorate would have a belief that fell within section 10 of the EqA 2010, which could not be the intention of the legislation.
It is also interesting that the Tribunal stated at the end of its judgment that the outcome may have been different had the Claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal. Whilst the claimant had less than two years’ service with the respondent, section 108(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that the two year qualifying period for unfair dismissal does not apply where the reason for the dismissal relates to the employee’s political opinions or affiliation. This was something the claimant missed when pleading her case, which may have been due to the fact she was self-represented.
For more information about this case, or other enquiries related to the Equality Act contact our Employment Team.
Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.
This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.
