Religion or belief

The protected characteristic of religion or belief includes any religion or philosophical belief, as well as a lack of any religion or philosophical belief (Section 10 EA 10). Guidance from Acas states that if a belief is profound and affects someone’s way of life or world-view, it is likely to be protected. In Grainger PLC & others v Nicholson [2010] IRLR 4, the EAT decided that a position on climate change and the environment could be a protected philosophical belief. In reaching this conclusion, the EAT noted how far Mr Grainger’s beliefs affected how he chose to live, such as his choice of home, method of travel, and items he purchased. The EAT set the following tests for establishing whether an individual’s beliefs amount to protected philosophical beliefs:

• the belief must be genuinely held;

• it must be a belief and not simply an opinion based on the present state of information available;

• it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;

• it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and

• it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the rights of others.

A protected “belief” need not be a fully-fledged system of thought. Pacifism, vegetarianism, Darwinism, humanism and atheism are probably all covered. A belief in spiritualism is covered (Power v Greater Manchester Police Authority [2010] UKEAT0087/10/0810). In Nikiel-Wolski v Burton’s Foods Limited [2013] EqLR 192, an employment tribunal ruled that a very strong belief in personal freedom and privacy, respect for personal property, freedom from authoritarianism and respect for human rights can be a philosophical belief. So too can a belief in the “higher purpose” of public services broadcasting (Maistry v BBC [2011] EqLR 549).

The EHRC Code gives an example of a belief that would not be protected as the belief in the racial superiority of a particular racial group. The Code states that this does not qualify for protection under the EA 10 because it is not compatible with human dignity and conflicts with the fundamental rights of others.