Religion and belief; the five criteria for a protected philosophical belief: (1) genuinely held; (2) a belief, not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information; (3) concerning a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; (4) attaining a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; (5) worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others. A belief in man-made climate change was capable of protection. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Human Rights; religion; the right to manifest religion (wearing a cross) was violated by BA's uniform policy. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Direct discrimination; the bakery's refusal to supply a cake iced with a message supporting same-sex marriage was not sexual orientation discrimination: the objection was to the message, not the messenger. Nobody can be compelled by law to express a message with which they profoundly disagree.
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
EWCA Civ 255 - Discrimination; religion; removal of a magistrate for media comments against same-sex adoption was lawful. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Discrimination; belief; 'gender critical' beliefs (that sex is immutable) are protected philosophical beliefs. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Discrimination; distinguishing between protected beliefs and the objection to the manner of manifesting them.
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Belief Discrimination; proportionality; dismissal of a school administrator for Facebook posts critical of gender identity teaching was disproportionate; the manner of expressing a belief can be separated from the belief itself but must be assessed proportionately.
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Religion or belief discrimination; manifestation. A descriptive belief cannot be a manifestation of a normative belief. The claimant relied on a normative 'treatment belief' (all people should be treated the same regardless of colour or culture), conceded by the respondent to be protected under s.10 EqA, and argued that his rejection of systemic racism was a manifestation of it. HHJ Auerbach held the two were categorically different: the treatment belief concerns what ought to be, the no-systemic-racism belief what is. A person holding the treatment belief could equally believe systemic racism does exist, so there was no sufficiently close and direct nexus and nothing 'intimately linked' under Eweida. The ET majority's contrary finding rested on a description of systemic racism theory that did not match its own earlier definition. Causation findings separately flawed; direct race discrimination finding perverse for want of specific facts capable of shifting the burden. All four complaints dismissed by substitution under Jafri; the 3,750 pound injury to feelings award quashed. Postscript: written reasons should record the minority's reasoning and identify who formed the majority. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
“It is trite law that a tribunal is not bound to address every feature of the evidence put forward on one side or the other. But this was a specific feature of the evidence relied upon by the respondent as showing a non-discriminatory explanation for this conduct.”HHJ Auerbach, at [74]
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Religion or belief discrimination; 'reason why' test; Court of Appeal dismisses application under CPR 52.30 to reopen refusal of permission to appeal; the 'reason why' each contract was terminated was the commercial and reputational consequences of a social media storm, not the claimant's religious beliefs or their manifestation; distinguished from Higgs where 'reason why' was not in dispute and proportionality was the issue. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
“the uncontroversial answer to the "reason why" question in Higgs was that it was the manner in which she expressed her beliefs. Section 13 EqA was therefore engaged, but subject to an assessment of the proportionality of the school's response. In contrast, the "reason why" question is the key issue in Miss Omooba's direct discrimination claim.”Lady Justice Falk, at [25]
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.