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/