Background: 

The claimant is employed as an individual conciliator by the respondent.   His race is white and the race of his wife and children is black.  The issue pertaining to this preliminary hearing was related to his belief.  There were two beliefs for the Tribunal to adjudicate upon. 

The first was his belief relating to race in which he stated the ‘woke’ approach to racism is misconceived in that its belief in structural racism is divisive because it tends to see white people as a problem that can result in separatism, segregation and ethnocentrism.   Instead, he stated he preferred the approach of Martin Luther King in which people are judged by the content of their character, rather than the colour of their skin.   

The second related to his views on sex and feminism.  He believed that it was unhelpful to view social problems through feminist eyes alluding to the statement of one feminist in which it was stated that high male suicide rates were unimportant.  

The Tribunal had to examine whether these were beliefs that were suitable for protection under the requirements set out within the Equality Act 2010. 

Outcome: 

The Tribunal examined the Grainger criteria which they noted had been incorporated into the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code of Practice on Employment.   This requires that the beliefs are genuinely held by the claimant, the belief is more than just an opinion or viewpoint, it concerns a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour and it has cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.  The Tribunal referenced to Charalambous v Barnsley College in which it related to the belief in the Black Lives Matter movement.  In that case, it was not regarded as a protected belief as it was an umbrella description of an amorphous and undefined set of political opinions.   However, in this case it was held that the beliefs relating to race were protected whereas those relating to sex and feminism where not.    It was found that the feminism point was only an opinion and that he was not able to articulate more generally his views on it.   This allowed the case to continue on the beliefs relating to race but not in relation to sex/feminism. 

Practical Guidance for Employers: 

This case demonstrates how the Tribunal will deal with the meaning of ‘belief’.  The Grainger factors are such that they can be examined against the evidence and the way in which the belief is articulated by the claimant.  In this situation, the views on race and how best to eliminate racism in society fit into those four categories.  As a result, they are protected as a philosophical belief and the case could continue on that basis.   The meaning of belief in this context is demonstrated as being wider than would have originally be thought – this ought to be taken into account by employers when faced with issues where an employee states that they have a strong belief in a particular area. 

The full case is available here:  
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/651d42146a6955000d78b29f/Mr_S_Corby_v_Advisory__Concilliation_and_Arbitration_Service_-_1805305.2022_-_Preliminary_Judgment.pdf