Backing Brexit is not a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act, an employment tribunal has ruled.
The case involved former UKIP councillor Colette Fairbanks, who was dismissed by drug and alcohol charity Change Grow Live (CGL) after sharing offensive social media posts about immigrants.
Fairbanks claimed she was "bullied and harassed" because of her political views, arguing that her support for Brexit, opposition to illegal immigration and desire for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were philosophical beliefs protected under the law.
Managing competing political opinions in the workplace
Do political conversations have a place at work?
Should you ban political discussion at work?
However, the tribunal rejected her claim, concluding that her beliefs were opinions rather than philosophical convictions. Employment judge Humble stated: "There has to be a distinction between a philosophical belief and a strongly held opinion.
"On balance, the tribunal found that the claimant had genuinely held opinions and views but she [Fairbanks] did not convince the tribunal that she had any underlying philosophical belief."
Background
Fairbanks began working as a recovery worker for CGL in Fleetwood in October 2022 and was dismissed in July 2023.
During her interview, she disclosed her past role as a local councillor but did not specify that she represented the UK Independence Party (UKIP) between 2017 and 2019.
She claimed that her difficulties with the charity started in February 2023 after a colleague informed her manager about her UKIP affiliation.
Fairbanks alleged that she was subsequently bullied and harassed because of her political background and was eventually dismissed for sharing offensive social media posts. She contested the ownership of one of the accounts used to justify her dismissal.
Her main complaint was that her UKIP membership led to unfair treatment and her dismissal. At a preliminary hearing, she argued that her political stance constituted a protected philosophical belief under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.
When asked to identify the specific beliefs she relied upon, she stated: "I believe the UK should be outside of the EU; I oppose illegal migration; I am against the halal slaughter of animals; and I would be happy to leave the ECHR."
The tribunal assessed whether these opinions satisfied the criteria outlined in Grainger plc v Nicholson, which required that a belief be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be compatible with human dignity and not conflict with fundamental rights.
While the tribunal accepted that Fairbanks genuinely held her opinions, it determined they did not amount to philosophical beliefs.
Panel's comments
The panel observed that Fairbanks consistently described her stance as 'political beliefs' or referenced her UKIP membership without presenting a coherent philosophical belief. This, it noted, suggested she had not properly formulated her claims.
Counsel for CGL argued: "If, for example, 'wanting to leave the EU' was held to be a philosophical belief, then more than half the British electorate would have a belief that fell within section 10 of the Equality Act, which could not be the intention of the legislation."
The tribunal concluded that Fairbanks failed to demonstrate a coherent philosophical belief underpinning her opinions.
"It cannot be sufficient for a claimant to arrive at a hearing and outline four opinions, however genuinely held, and expect these to be accepted as philosophical beliefs. Nor is membership of a political party enough, in itself, to amount to a philosophical belief," the tribunal ruled.
Lawyers' comments
Fudia Smartt, employment partner at Spencer West, reflected on the tribunal's decision to reject Fairbank's claim. "Pro-Brexit views vary greatly, so it is difficult to see how they could acquire the level of cogency required for protection," she said.
Smartt pointed out that the panel also found it "difficult to see the underlying philosophical belief pertaining to the claimant's opinions".
The tribunal emphasised the need to distinguish between personal opinions and philosophical beliefs, which Smartt described as essential in upholding the integrity of equality laws.
According to Shazia Shah, legal director at Irwin Mitchell, the Grainger criteria have been pivotal in determining which beliefs are protected under UK law, with various cases setting clear precedents.
"These include a belief in climate change, ethical veganism, anti-fox hunting, the 'higher purpose' of public service broadcasting, Scottish independence and that people cannot change their sex," she explained.
However, some beliefs have fallen short of the threshold, such as allegiance to a political party like the SNP, wearing a poppy in November or following a vegetarian diet.
Shah said holding a belief alone was not enough to guarantee protection under the Equality Act. "A tribunal will want to know what a person actually believes," she said, adding that it would also seek evidence of how these beliefs influenced daily life.
The ruling also illustrated the boundaries of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, according to Marie van der Zyl, employment partner at Keystone Law. In this case, the tribunal found that support for Brexit, although deeply held by the claimant, did not meet these thresholds. "The tribunal determined it was more of a political opinion or viewpoint rather than a protected belief," she added.
Van der Zyl emphasised the distinction between personal or political preferences and legally protected beliefs, noting its importance for employers.
The case also highlights the challenges organisations faced in addressing politically sensitive issues in the workplace. "Employers need to tread carefully when navigating politically charged topics to avoid alienating staff or creating a divisive environment," Van der Zyl warned.
She added that discrimination must always be avoided, regardless of the type of belief. "While fostering diversity, organisations must balance freedom of expression with respect for all employees," she said.
Ultimately, Van der Zyl stressed the need for workplace cultures that support diverse opinions while maintaining professionalism. "There needs to be a culture where diverse opinions can be expressed so employees do not feel bullied, even if personal views are not protected in law," she said.
For further resources, visit the CIPD's employment law topic hub
Originally published by CIPD
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
