Religion or belief discrimination

Religion or belief discrimination

Summary:?Claimant’s belief in English nationalism not a protected belief under Equality Act 2010.

In?Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust,?the Claimant claimed that his assignment had been terminated by the Respondent because of his belief in English nationalism. As a preliminary issue, the employment tribunal considered whether his belief was a ‘protected belief’ under Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal held that, although many aspects of the Claimant’s belief in English nationalism?would have been found to be protected by Equality Act 2010, his belief included anti-Islamic beliefs. He believed that there was no place in British society for Muslims or Islam itself, and?that Muslims should be forcibly deported from the UK. The tribunal held that his belief fell foul of the fifth criteria from?Grainger v Nicholson: that the belief must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, must not be incompatible with human dignity, and must not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

The?Claimant’s belief was not protected. The Claimant appealed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with the tribunal.?UK law had to be interpreted, insofar as possible, in accordance with the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention). Article 17 of the Convention states that a person cannot claim the protection of the Convention, where to do so would allow the performance of any act “aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms” set out in the Convention.The EAT noted that forcible deportation of Muslims from the United Kingdom would undoubtedly amount to the destruction of their Convention rights. The language used by the Claimant fell within the grave forms of “hate speech”. The EAT held that, whilst the threshold for protection under the Convention, and therefore under Equality Act 2010, is low, the tribunal did not err in finding that the Claimant’s beliefs did not pass that threshold.




要查看或添加评论,请登录

Daniel Barnett的更多文章

  • Compensation

    Compensation

    Summary: Tribunal erred in reducing discrimination compensation by 80% based on the chance that the Claimant might have…

    1 条评论
  • ERB: Zero hours contracts

    ERB: Zero hours contracts

    Summary: Government to amend Employment Rights Bill to include framework for application of zero hours contracts…

    5 条评论
  • Unfair dismissal: SOSR

    Unfair dismissal: SOSR

    Summary: Dismissal based on a genuine but erroneous belief that the Claimant had resigned should have been considered…

    1 条评论
  • Employment Tribunals

    Employment Tribunals

    Summary: New ET rules of procedure in force from 6 January 2025 From 6 January 2025, employment law practitioners will…

    3 条评论
  • Unfair dismissal: SOSR

    Unfair dismissal: SOSR

    Summary: Length of service and alternatives to dismissal not relevant factors where dismissal was due to irretrievable…

    2 条评论
  • Holiday Pay

    Holiday Pay

    Summary: Gap of over three months between deductions did not break chain in holiday pay claim In Deksne v Ambitions…

  • Maternity Protection

    Maternity Protection

    Summary: Suitable Alternative Employment In Hunter v Carnival plc the Employment Appeal Tribunal looked at the…

    2 条评论
  • Employment Appeal Tribunal

    Employment Appeal Tribunal

    Summary: EAT issues new Practice Direction to accompany new Rules The Employment Appeal Tribunal has published a new…

  • Whistleblowing detriment

    Whistleblowing detriment

    Summary: Disclosures made before employment begins can qualify as protected In MacLennan v British Psychological…

    1 条评论
  • Employment Rights Bill: consultation on remedies for collective redundancy and fire and rehire

    Employment Rights Bill: consultation on remedies for collective redundancy and fire and rehire

    Summary: Government launches consultation seeking views on strengthening remedies against abuse of rules on collective…

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了