British Employment Tribunal Holds That Anti-Zionist Views Are a Protected Philosophical Belief

In Miller v. University of Bristol, (Bristol Empl. Trib., Feb. 5, 2024), a British Employment Tribunal held that anti-Zionist views held by a Professor of Political Sociology at the University of Bristol qualify as a philosophical belief that is protected under Equality Act 2010, Sec. 4 and 10. In a 108-page, 495 paragraph opinion, the Tribunal describes the professor's claims:

He contends that since at least March 2019 he was subject to an organised campaign by groups and individuals opposed to his anti-Zionist views, which was aimed at securing his dismissal. Further, he alleges that the respondent failed to investigate or support him in respect of this campaign and instead subjected him to discriminatory and unfair misconduct proceedings which culminated eventually in his summary dismissal.

In reaching its conclusion that the professor's beliefs were protected, the court applied the criteria from an Employment Appeals Tribunal decision, Grainger Plc v. Nicholson, one of which is that the belief "must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others."

The professor contended "that his anti-Zionism is not opposition to or antipathy towards Jews or Judaism," and apparently the University conceded that none of his actions or statements were antisemitic.

The court, in finding that the professor's beliefs are protected, said in part:

... [W]hile those in opposition to the claimant's views could logically and cogently argue that antisemitism is why Zionism exists in the first place, it is not for the tribunal to inquire into the validity of either belief.... 

The tribunal is aware that there are very strong opposing beliefs and opinions to those held and expressed by the claimant. However, ... the paramount guiding principle in assessing any belief is that it is not for the court or tribunal to inquire into its validity.

In a press release commenting on the court's decision, the University said in part:

 After a full investigation and careful deliberation, the University concluded that Dr Miller did not meet the standards of behaviour we expect from our staff in relation to comments he made in February 2021 about students and student societies linked to the University. As a result and considering our responsibilities to our students and the wider University community, his employment was terminated. 

Law & Religion UK has a lengthier discussion of the decision.

British Employment Tribunal Says Equality Act Does Not Cover Discrimination Because Of Fear Of COVID

Among other things, Britain's Equality Act, §10, prohibits discrimination on the basis of "belief".  In X v. Y, (Empl. Trib., Dec. 13, 2021), an Employment Tribunal in England's city of Manchester held that an employee's fear of catching COVID-19 and her need to protect herself and others does not qualify as a "belief" for purposes of the Act.  The Tribunal said in part:

I do not find that the claimant’s fear amounts to a belief. Rather, it is a reaction to a threat of physical harm and the need to take steps to avoid or reduce that threat. Most (if not all) people, instinctively react to perceived or real threats of physical harm in one way or another.... However, a fear of physical harm and views about how best to reduce or avoid a risk of physical harm is not a belief for the purposes of section 10.

Law & Religion UK reports on the decision.

British Employment Tribunal Rules Against Doctor Who Objects To Policy On Pronouns For Transgender Patients

In Mackereth v. Department for Work and Pensions, (Empl. Trib., Oc. 2, 2019), a British Employment Tribunal held that while a doctor's Christian religious beliefs are protected under the Equality Act, his refusal to refer to transgender patients who he was hired to assess by their preferred pronouns and titles constitutes unlawful discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act. The Tribunal said in part:

We accept that the belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism ... are genuinely held and ... relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour and attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance....

Irrespective of our determinations above, ... belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others, specifically here, transgender individuals....

... [T]he right to manifest a religion or belief is subject to art. 9(2) [of the European Convention on Human Rights] which includes “the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”....

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.