Not quite “religion”, but…

In Mrs C Fairbanks v Change Grow Live [2024] UKET 2409700/2023, Mrs Fairbanks had been employed by Change Grow Live (CGL), a charity, as a recovery worker based in Fleetwood from October 2022 until she was dismissed in July 2023. She had been a local councillor for the UK Independence Party between about 2017 and 2019, and at the job interview, she had told the charity that she had been a councillor but had not told them which party she had represented.

She believed that difficulties had arisen with her employer from about February 2023 when a colleague told her manager that she had been a UKIP councillor. She claimed that she had been subsequently bullied and harassed by CGL about her membership of UKIP, and she was ultimately dismissed over social media posts on Twitter/X accounts – one of which, she claimed, did not belong to her [13 & 14]. Her principal complaint was that she had been treated to her detriment and ultimately dismissed because of her membership of UKIP [32].

At a preliminary hearing, she claimed that she held a philosophical belief protected by s.10 Equality Act 2010 [3]. When the tribunal explained that membership of a political party was not, in itself, likely to be a philosophical belief and asked her to identify precisely on which philosophical belief she sought to rely, she replied, “I believe the UK should be outside of the EU”; “I oppose illegal migration”; “I am against the halal slaughter of animals”; and “I would be happy to leave the ECHR” [6].

The preliminary issue before the tribunal was whether those four opinions satisfied the test in Grainger plc v Nicholson: specifically, whether they were worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and did not conflict with the fundamental rights of others [12]. Though the tribunal was satisfied that her opinions were genuinely held [21], the main issue was whether her views amounted to philosophical beliefs and not merely “an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available” [22].

The tribunal noted that in her evidence and her pleaded case she “had consistently referred to ‘political beliefs’ or her membership of UKIP and did not reference any philosophical belief at all”; and while that was not conclusive it suggested that she had not properly considered and formulated any philosophical belief [24]. There had to be a distinction between a philosophical belief and a strongly held opinion. As counsel for CGL had pointed out, “if, for example, ‘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 EQA, which could not be the intention of the legislation” – and despite the tribunal’s probing, “no coherent belief or set of beliefs was forthcoming” [25].

On balance, therefore, the tribunal found that Mrs Fairbanks had genuinely held opinions and views but did not hold any underlying philosophical belief [25]:

“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” [31].

Claim dismissed [32]. [With thanks to sacraleges.]