header-logo header-logo

Philosophical belief limitations

12 November 2009
Issue: 7393 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Protection from discrimination may be afforded to certain, genuine beliefs

Strongly held environmental beliefs may be protected against discrimination in the same way as religious or other philosophical beliefs, a tribunal has held.

In Grainger plc v Nicholson, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a belief in man-made climate change is capable of being a “philosophical belief” for the purpose of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

Tim Nicholson, who claims he was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against because of his philosophical belief about climate change and the environment, will now bring his claim before a tribunal.

Nicholson claims he was obstructed in his attempts to encourage the firm to take a more environmentally responsible approach. He claimed the firm used “some of the most highly polluting cars on the road”, and flew a member of the IT team out to Ireland to deliver the chief executive’s BlackBerry.

Grainger plc disputes the claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination. It had argued that Nicholson’s views on climate change and the environment could not amount to a philosophical belief because they were based on fact and science.

However, Mr Justice Burton disagreed. He set out the limitations of “philosophical belief”: the belief must be genuinely held; it must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the 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; and it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

A belief in the supreme nature of the Jedi Knights, or belief in a racist or homophobic political philosophy would fail the test, he said. However, a genuine belief in socialism, communism or free market capitalism might qualify.

“In my judgment, if a person can establish that he holds a philosophical belief which is based on science, as opposed, for example, to religion, then there is no reason to disqualify it from protection by the Regulations,” he said.
 

Issue: 7393 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll