Religious Discrimination and Philosophical Beliefs

As many will be aware the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 provide that it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee/worker on the grounds of their religion or belief.

It also provides that Religion means ANY religion and belief means any religious or philosophical belief.

But just how far does philosophical belief extend?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (Burton J: sitting alone) has handed down its decision in Grainger Plc & others v Nicholson and it held that a belief in man made climate change and the moral imperatives arising out of this are capable of being a philosophical belief within the context of the regulations.

Not only this, but the EAT further sets out guidance as to what will likely qualify as philosophical beliefs within the regulations. Paragraph 24 of the judgement provides that in order to qualify the following will need to apply:

1. The belief must be genuinely held.
2. It must be a belief and not a viewpoint or opinion based on the present state of information available.
3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
5. It must be worthy of respect and compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

The EAT further held that whilst there would need to be some similarities to religious beliefs in terms of the extent as to how someone would hold such a belief, Burton J did go onto say that a one off belief that is not held by others need not be excluded from within the regulations.

Whilst this might seem to open up the floodgates his comments later on into the judgement slam them firmly shut in relation to beliefs that clearly fall inside the limitations listed above. For example the belief in the supremacy of the Jedi Knight would clearly fall outside of the protection of the regulations but a philosophical belief such as vegetarianism might well be capable of being protected by the regulations.

I have to say that this judgement has made interesting reading and no doubt will be used in future cases. For a look at the judgement click here

If you do need advice on this subject please contact me on gda@hrlegalonline.com