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 checked against a practitioner text, not 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.
Discrimination; religion or belief; gender-critical belief; Grainger V. The tribunal held that the claimant's belief that sex is immutable failed only the fifth Grainger criterion [23]. The EAT (Choudhury P presiding) held that Grainger V excludes only beliefs that would fall outside Article 9 by virtue of Article 17 ECHR [68]: beliefs akin to Nazism or totalitarianism, or espousing violence and hatred in the gravest of forms [79]. The claimant's belief was not comparable [100], [111]: the only possible conclusion was that it fell within s.10 EqA 2010 [110]. A finding to that effect was substituted and the case remitted to a fresh tribunal to decide whether the treatment complained of was because of or related to the belief [117]. The judgment does not mean that those who hold the belief may misgender trans persons with impunity: they remain subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment [104], [118].
Discrimination; religion or belief; manifestation. A non-executive director of an NHS trust was disciplined after media interviews in which he expressed views, rooted in his Christian faith, about adoption by same-sex couples [2]. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal [99]. Even if article 9 was engaged, the tribunal was entitled to find the interference justified [51], [67]: the justification rested on the risk that his views might deter mentally ill gay people from engaging with the trust's services [61]. On direct discrimination the reason for acting may be the objectionable manifestation of a belief and not the belief itself [68]. The Authority acted not because he was a Christian or held the traditional family belief but because he expressed that belief in the national media in circumstances which justified the action [72]. That distinction is plainly correct [74]. The indirect discrimination and victimisation appeals also failed [91], [94].
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; religion or belief; gender-critical belief; Grainger V. The tribunal held that the claimant's belief that sex is immutable failed only the fifth Grainger criterion [23]. The EAT (Choudhury P presiding) held that Grainger V excludes only beliefs that would fall outside Article 9 by virtue of Article 17 ECHR [68]: beliefs akin to Nazism or totalitarianism, or espousing violence and hatred in the gravest of forms [79]. The claimant's belief was not comparable [100], [111]: the only possible conclusion was that it fell within s.10 EqA 2010 [110]. A finding to that effect was substituted and the case remitted to a fresh tribunal to decide whether the treatment complained of was because of or related to the belief [117]. The judgment does not mean that those who hold the belief may misgender trans persons with impunity: they remain subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment [104], [118].
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. The claimant relied on a normative treatment belief, that all people should be treated the same regardless of colour or culture, which the respondent did not dispute was protected, and on his rejection of systemic racism as a manifestation of it [39], [42], [53]. The EAT held that, on the beliefs as the tribunal described them, the second was a descriptive belief about what is and could not be a manifestation of the first: a holder of the treatment belief could equally think systemic racism exists [55]-[57]. Whether the no-systemic-racism belief was itself protected was not decided [42]. The majority also failed to engage with the respondent's non-discriminatory explanations [67], [74], [78], and its race discrimination finding was perverse [84]. All four complaints were dismissed by substitution under Jafri and the injury to feelings award quashed [85]-[86]. Written reasons should set out the minority's reasoning and identify the majority [87].
“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; CPR 52.30. The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to reopen a refusal of permission to appeal [52]. The tribunal had found that the reason why each contract was terminated did not comprise or include the claimant's beliefs or her manifestation of them [8]. The argument that the refusal was inconsistent with Higgs was misconceived [3]: in Higgs the answer to the reason why question was uncontroversial and proportionality was the issue, whereas here the reason why question was the key issue [25]. Determining the reason why is a question of fact allocated to the tribunal, with appeals limited to errors of law [39]. There was no rule of law requiring the tribunal to find that the beliefs were a reason for the treatment [41]-[42]. Bean LJ had grappled with the issues raised [43].
“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.