Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Belief discriminationEquality, diversity and inclusionOpinion

How philosophical beliefs are protected against discrimination

by Lee-Anne Crossman 26 Nov 2012
by Lee-Anne Crossman 26 Nov 2012

The recent case of Redfearn v The United Kingdom, which has in some places been abbreviated as the case of the “BNP bus driver” has raised the question: Does dismissal on political grounds constitute discrimination on grounds of belief, contrary to the Equality Act 2010?

While most employers are familiar with religious discrimination rights, the partnering protection for a person’s philosophical belief can be overlooked, says Lee-Anne Crossman, an associate at Hill Dickinson.

Past cases have established that various belief systems may be afforded protection in law. A belief in catastrophic climate change was sufficient to meet the test, as was a philosophy against fox hunting. It has even been extended to beliefs in the higher purposes of public-service broadcasting, as well as mediums and their ability to contact the dead.

However, there have also been some notable failures to establish that a belief meets the criteria for discrimination protection. A belief that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and 7/7 were authorised by the British and American Governments and that there was a worldwide media conspiracy, failed on the grounds that upon objective scrutiny, the beliefs were “absurd” and not cogent. Further, a belief that people should wear a remembrance poppy from 2 November until Remembrance Sunday was not considered sufficiently weighty and substantial to qualify. Similarly, an objection to same-sex couples adopting children was found to be a mere opinion, rather than a philosophical belief.

What amounts to a philosophical belief?

For a belief to qualify for protection it must be established that it:



  • is genuinely held;
  • is a belief, not just an opinion or viewpoint;
  • applies to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
  • is sufficiently cogent, serious, cohesive and important;
  • is worthy of respect in a democratic society;
  • is not incompatible with human dignity; and
  • does not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Political ideology has long been a difficult aspect of the philosophical belief criteria. It is thought that belief in a political system, such as Marxism, may be protected, but the issue of whether or not belief in a political party will qualify is more vexed. UK cases have previously found against protecting belief in the British National Party (BNP). However, the removal of the requirement that a philosophical belief is “similar” to a religious belief by the Equality Act 2010 and a recent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case has raised questions in this area.

Facts of the case

Mr Redfearn was employed by Serco to transport disabled passengers, a large proportion of who were Asian, in Bradford. When Mr Redfearn stood for election as a local councillor for the BNP, trade unions raised objections, and following his election his employment was terminated. This was based on the belief that his continued employment may cause anxiety to his passengers and their carers as well as possibly jeopardising the contract with Bradford Council.

Mr Redfearn did not have the necessary period of continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim. He brought a claim for race discrimination. His claim for race discrimination was rejected by the Court of Appeal, as “properly analysed Mr Redfearn’s complaint is of discrimination on political grounds” and did not amount to race discrimination.

The Court did comment that if this was an unfair dismissal case “it is not, in general, fair to dismiss a person for engaging in political activities… we aspire to live in peace with one another in a politically free and tolerant society. Unpopular political opinions are lawful, even if they are intolerant of others and give offence to many”.

The case did not go on to examine issues about whether or not Mr Redfearn’s politics were acceptable or whether or not Serco’s treatment of him was fair and reasonable.

Mr Redfearn brought a claim to the ECHR on the grounds that the dismissal interfered with his rights to freedom of assembly and association, and freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). The ECHR agreed. It was relevant that Mr Redfearn was a “first-class employee”, the concerns were of potential rather than actual problems, and that at the age of 56 his future employment opportunities were badly damaged.

The ECHR found that the UK should provide an opportunity for legal redress to employees to protect them against dismissal motivated solely by membership of a particular political party. As a minimum, the proportionality of such action should be capable of independent consideration. The court noted the Convention applies to both those whose views are favourably regarded, as well as those that “offend, shock or disturb”.

Effect on domestic law

The decision means that the UK has been found to be in violation of the Convention. The Government can ask for the case to be referred to the Strasbourg Court’s Grand Chamber to be re-examined, but if the Grand Chamber does not overrule the decision the Government will have to put into place legislation to allow employees to seek a legal review of a dismissal based on their membership of political parties.

Impact on employers

It is believed that employers who discriminate on the grounds of political affiliation are more likely to face a claim, in an employment tribunal, of discrimination based on the person’s philosophical belief (so long as it meets the criteria for qualification, including the need to establish that the belief is worthy of respect in a democratic society, is not incompatible with human dignity and does not conflict with the fundamental rights of others). Whether or not the BNP’s views meet this test remains to be seen.

Public-sector employers also face the prospect of a direct civil claim based on breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, and will also need to be mindful of this development in regard to their public-sector equality duties.

However, this case does not mean if someone holds a philosophical belief they can voice it with impunity – a protected belief may be expressed in an unacceptable way, for example, by promoting those beliefs at work, or by conflicting with other rights. Further, the holding of certain political beliefs may be incompatible with certain roles.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

What these developments do highlight is that employers now need to pause and consider the potential legal consequences before taking action against a person on political grounds because it may constitute discrimination on the grounds of belief, contrary to the Equality Act 2010.

XpertHR has further information on discrimination due to religion or belief.

Lee-Anne Crossman

previous post
Legal opinion: Can employees be dismissed for their political opinions?
next post
Poor female talent pipeline ‘costing £5bn a year’

You may also like

Fewer workers would comply with a return-to-office mandate

21 May 2025

Redefining leadership: From competence to inclusion

21 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Culture, ‘micro-incivilities’ and invisible talent

14 May 2025

Why fighting the DEI backlash is about PR...

9 May 2025

So what does the election of a new...

9 May 2025

Rethinking talent: Who was never considered in the...

7 May 2025

Reform UK councils’ staff face WFH ban

6 May 2025

Eight ways to best support grieving employees

6 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+