The claimant appealed against a decision that her belief that there was a human or moral right to own the copyright of her creative works, except when the creative work is produced on behalf of the employer, was not a philosophical belief under Section 10(2) of the Equality Act 2010 covering religious discrimination.

The claimant was employed by the respondent fashion company.  She had access before particular items were launched and was dismissed after her refusal to sign a confidentiality agreement.  This led to respondent to believe that she intended to copy the products.  The claimant was worried that the confidentiality agreement would extend to her artistic work as a filmmaker or writer.

The Tribunal and the EAT both held that this did not amount to a philosophical belief that was capable of protection nor did it amount to either direct or indirect discrimination in requiring the confidentiality agreement to be signed.

The Court of Appeal stated that whether there was a philosophical belief or not was essentially irrelevant.   This was because there was no causal link between the belief and the refusal to sign the confidentiality agreement or the respondent’s decision to dismiss her.

The Court of Appeal found the real reason the claimant had refused to sign the confidentiality agreement was that it failed to sufficiently protect her own interests.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the indirect discrimination argument outlining that out of the 1,500 employees of the respondent not one had been disadvantaged by the confidentiality agreement.  This went to the argument that the claimant had a ‘crisis of conscience’ regarding how wide the confidentiality agreement had been drafted.

Lastly, the court found that the respondent had a justification for the confidentiality agreement and that its content was reasonable. It was a proportionate means of achieving the aim of protecting the intellectual property of the respondent company. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This case, on the face of it, seems like a very odd one with little that would link a confidentiality agreement to religious discrimination.  With religious discrimination encompassing philosophical belief there have been wider arguments made recently.

This in relation to intellectual property can be seen alongside the recent case involving vegetarianism (Conisbee v Crossley Farms).  Whilst the court has noted that they do not fall under philosophical beliefs it demonstrates that there is a widening in the argument.  Employers should be aware of the wider view of religious beliefs but the decisions have not opened the floodgates in this regard.
https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/gray-v-mulberry-company-design-ltd/