A belief in English nationalism is not a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010!

Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

The Claimant, an agency worker, had his assignment with the Trust terminated after 2 months because he had failed to disclose a spent conviction.

Claim – Discrimination on the ground of religion or belief under the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant alleged that his political affiliation with the English Democrats and his belief in English nationalism was the real reason for the termination.

ET Decision – English nationalism was capable of being a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. However, the Claimant’s anti-Islamic views (namely, there was no place in British society for Muslims or Islam itself, and that Muslims should be forcibly deported from the UK) were not protected as they did not fully meet the criteria set out in the case of Grainger v Nicholson, which states that beliefs must not be incompatible with human dignity and must not conflict the fundamental rights of others.

The Claimant appealed. One of the Claimant’s arguments related to the EAT’s decision in the Forstater v CGD Europe and ors, which had been given after the ET’s decision in this case. The Claimant’s argument was that Forstater had lowered the criteria threshold meaning that his belief should be protected.

EAT Decision – The Claimant’s views offend Article 17 of the European Convention of Human Rights and therefore fall outside its protection. Whilst the Claimant was free to hold his beliefs, he was not able to complain about discrimination in relation to those beliefs. The EAT also stated that even though the threshold for protection is low, there were no errors with the ET’s findings that the Claimant’s beliefs did not pass the threshold.

Appeal dismissed.

Key takeaways

• The decision has effectively corrected what seems to have been a misconception amongst many that the earlier EAT decision of Forstater had lowered the threshold for qualifying beliefs.
• Employees are free to believe whatever they wish, but those beliefs may not afford them the right to complain about discrimination.
• In light of the recent political climate, this decision should provide great reassurance to many, particularly employers when striving to implement positive EDI strategies.??

Rehana Azib KC of 2 Temple Gardens represented the Respondents and was instructed by Courtney Janotta from Bevan Brittan.

For further information or assistance please get in touch with a member of our Employment, Pensions & Immigration team.

?