In February, we posted Anti-Zionism as a protected belief: Miller, which commented on the case of Dr David Miller v University of Bristol [2024] ET 1400780/2022. Dr Miller had been appointed Professor of Political Sociology at the University from 1 September 2018, but in 2019 there were complaints about his conduct, including what was said to be his use of antisemitic language. The Community Security Trust charity said that a lecture he had given had been a “false, vile, anti-Semitic slur”. The University appointed an independent barrister to investigate this as part of its internal complaints procedure, who concluded on 4 December 2020 that there was no formal case to answer in connection with any of the matters investigated.

In February 2021, Dr Miller took part in an event called “Building the Campaign for Free Speech” at which he spoke of being publicly criticised for his views on Palestine and Israel. The University subsequently received a significant volume of correspondence calling for it to take urgent disciplinary action, and after further disciplinary proceedings, he was dismissed for gross misconduct.

Before an Employment Tribunal, he argued, in brief, that political Zionism was inherently racist, imperialistic and colonial and ought therefore to be opposed. On the issue of belief, the ET concluded that the Grainger criteria (as reproduced at [162]) had been met [238] and that his claim for unfair dismissal therefore succeeded, though all other claims for harassment and direct discrimination failed. However, it reduced the basic and compensatory awards by 50% in accordance with sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 “because the claimant’s dismissal was caused or contributed to by his own actions and it is just and equitable to reduce the said awards by 50%.” It also concluded that “There is a 30% chance that, had the claimant still been employed, the respondent would have dismissed him fairly two months after comments the claimant made on social media in August 2023”.

An updated judgment has now been published: see Dr David Miller v University of Bristol [2024] ET 1400780/2022 – which, inevitably (and confusingly), has the same citation as the earlier one. The ET concluded at [237] that Dr Miller’s opposition to Zionism

“is not opposition to the idea of Jewish self-determination or of a preponderantly Jewish state existing in the world, but rather, as he defines it, to the exclusive realisation of Jewish rights to self-determination within a land that is home to a very substantial non-Jewish population.”

On the issue of philosophical belief and the Grainger criteria, it said this at [238]:

“Conclusion on belief: The tribunal is aware that there are very strong opposing beliefs and opinions to those held and expressed by the claimant. However, as has been set out very clearly in the authorities, the paramount guiding principle in assessing any belief is that it is not for the court or tribunal to inquire into its validity. We have also concentrated on the core elements of the belief in issue, which are set out in the claim form and list of issues. For the reasons set out above, we find that the claimant has established that the Grainger criteria have been met and that his belief amounted to a philosophical belief as defined by section 10 EqA.”

The level of compensation will be determined at a later remedy hearing.

Comment

There does not appear to be anything very much in this latest judgment that was not covered in the previous one.