Planet earth Home | News & events | Legal updates | Employee with climate change belief protected against workplace discrimination

Employee with climate change belief protected against workplace discrimination

04 November 2009

A decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) means employees holding philosophical beliefs may now enjoy legal protection against discrimination in the workplace.

Since 2003, under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations (the Regulations), it has been unlawful for employers to discriminate against job applicants, employees and contract workers on the grounds of their religion or belief, including any lack of religion or belief.

While it is relatively easy to recognise someone’s religion, it is harder to identify if they have beliefs which may be legally protected. The Regulations simply define belief as ‘any religious or philosophical belief’. 

In Grainger plc v Nicholson, the EAT was asked whether a belief in climate change could be protected under the Regulations.

Mr Nicholson alleged he had been made redundant because of these beliefs. He claimed his belief:

“…affects how I live my life including my choice of home, how I travel, what I buy, what I eat and drink, what I do with my waste and my hopes and my fears. For example, I no longer travel by airplane, I have eco-renovated my home, I try to buy local produce, I have reduced my consumption of meat, I compost my food waste, I encourage others to reduce their carbon emissions and I fear very much for the future of the human race, given the failure to reduce carbon emissions on a global scale.”

The EAT recognised that there must be some limit on the meaning of ‘philosophical belief’ for the purposes of the Regulations, and set out guidelines for determining such a belief:

The EAT also took the opportunity to lay to rest any argument that a belief in the supreme nature of the Jedi Knights would be protected, by expressly stating that such a claim would fail at least four of the guideline set out above!

This is only a preliminary ruling. The case will now go before a tribunal that will have to consider whether there was a causal link between Mr Nicholson’s beliefs and his dismissal.

The EAT stressed that at any full hearing the tribunal should hear evidence and cross-examination on the issue of the genuineness of the claimant’s belief, given its unusual nature.

This ruling appears to expand significantly on the previously understood limits of the meaning of belief, and so employers need to be aware that employees who hold less mainstream beliefs could be legally protected.

Policies, procedures and work requirements could be indirectly discriminatory in a variety of circumstances. For example, pacifism is likely to qualify as a ‘belief’. Certain employers, depending upon the nature of the work they do, should be particularly aware that a pacifist employee could be indirectly discriminated against by certain requirements. However, employers will have a defence against any claim for indirect (but not direct) discrimination if they can objectively justify the relevant policy or requirement.

© Shoosmiths. This page is for general information: it is not legal advice. Please read our full terms and conditions for details of the disclaimers and exclusions which apply.

Are any of the issues in this article giving you a headache? If so, we want to know

Name *

Comments*

The information you provide here will be used solely for the purposes of responding to your query for more information see our privacy policy.