Employment Tribunal Rules Anti-Islamic Views Not Protected Under Equality Act

An Employment Tribunal has ruled that in the case, Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, the Claimant’s beliefs in English nationalism were not protected under the Equality Act 2010.

Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

Background

The Claimant, Mr Thomas, alleged that his employment had been terminated by the Respondent NHS Trust because of his beliefs in English nationalism. However, firstly the Tribunal had to decide whether Mr Thomas’ beliefs qualified for protection under the Equality Act.

The Tribunal found that while some of Mr Thomas’ English nationalist views would have been protected, his beliefs also included strong anti-Islamic sentiments. Particularly, Mr. Thomas believed there was no place for Muslims or Islam in British society and that Muslims should be forcibly deported from the UK.

Applying the test set out in the Grainger v Nicholson case, the Tribunal ruled that Mr Thomas’ anti-Islamic views were not “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and were “incompatible with human dignity” and contrary to the fundamental rights of others. Therefore, as a result, the Tribunal held that these beliefs were not protected under the Equality Act.

Mr Thomas appealed the Tribunal’s decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the original ruling, agreeing that Mr Thomas’ beliefs fell outside the scope of protection.

The EAT noted that Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits using the Convention to perform acts aimed at destroying the rights and freedoms it sets forth. The EAT found that forcibly deporting Muslims from the UK would undoubtedly amount to the destruction of their Convention rights.

Furthermore, the language used by Mr. Thomas was held to constitute grave “hate speech” that went beyond the threshold required for beliefs to receive protection under the law.

Comment

This case highlights the limits of what constitutes a “protected belief” under UK equality legislation. While the bar for protection is generally set quite low, beliefs that are fundamentally incompatible with human rights and democratic values will not qualify for protection.

This case reinforces that there are boundaries to the beliefs and views the law is willing to safeguard, even within the context of protected characteristics like religion or philosophical conviction.

Employers can find it difficult to manage employees who hold controversial beliefs or groups of employees whose beliefs are in conflict. This case should give reassurance to employers that extreme views will not be protected and that employers can manage employees holding such beliefs accordingly.