Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Miller v University of Bristol [2023]
Miller v University of Bristol [2023]
Published on: 13/02/2024
Issues Covered: Dismissal Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister

Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University.  As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal.   At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Background

Background:

The claimant was employed as a Professor by the respondent from 2018.   The claimant argued that he was targeted by his colleagues leading to his ousting from his position due to his anti-Zionist views.   This, he argued, also included a lack of support and investigation into these concerns by his employer. The claimant argued that the ideology advocating for a Jewish state in the former British Mandate of Palestine was inherently racist and colonial.

This case arose from a lecture the claimant delivered on Islamophobia in which he stated Zionism was one of the main five pillars driving Islamophobia.  This led to two complaints from Jewish undergraduate students as well as complaints from third parties, notably the President of the Bristol Jewish Society.

The respondent dismissed the central complaint about the content of the lecture, noting there was free speech and there was no evidence that the claimant was expressing hostility towards Jews.  Following an appeal, Senior Counsel oversaw an investigation into the complaint.   That investigation found that there was no case to answer and it did not constitute misconduct.   In 2021, this went forward with the claimant taking part in an online event relating to free speech.  At this event, he criticised Zionist movements and this was met with allegations on social media the claimant was an anti-Semite.  A second investigation took place in which it was found the comments could potentially breach conduct policies relating to acceptable behaviours and freedom of speech.   This was seen to amount to gross misconduct leading to the dismissal of the claimant.

Outcome:

The first issue was whether the claimant’s beliefs constituted a philosophical belief and received protection under the Equality Act 2010. On that basis, the claimant was found to succeed on the claim of direct discrimination as a result of the decision to dismiss him but also the rejection of the appeal against that dismissal.  It should be noted the awards were reduced by 50% due to contributory conduct and it was also noted by the Tribunal there was 30% chance the claimant would have been dismissed if he had still been employed due to comments made on social media.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

This case yet again provides another example of the types of belief that are protected through the meaning of ‘philosophical belief’.  Some of these beliefs can be regarded as controversial but following the categorisation of the beliefs through the Grainger factors set out by the Supreme Court does demonstrate that they can still be given protection which needs to be taken into account by employers.  This should be taken into account when action is being taken based upon matters which could relate to a belief which is genuinely held by an employee.

Read the full judgment here: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/miller-v-university-of-bristol/      

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 13/02/2024