EAT Disability Discrimination – RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
The Claimant had a belief (which the Employment Tribunal thought genuine) that public service was improperly wasteful of money. He worked for the Dorset Police force (a small force) and claimed that he felt compelled to express these views and as a result suffered discrimination on the ground of his philosophical belief. He claimed to have suffered from bipolar disease, OCD and stress since around 2001, though he had not mentioned this to his employer despite having several opportunities to do so. An Employment Judge at a Preliminary Hearing considered whether his belief met the necessary criteria to merit the protection of the Equality Act 2010, and thought it did not since it failed to meet three of the five necessary criteria expressed in Grainger. He held that the Claimant was not disabled before 28 May 2013 (after which date it was admitted by the Respondent) since there was no cogent evidence that there had been a substantial adverse effect upon his normal day-to-day activities as a result of his conditions (which the Employment Judge accepted he had had for some time) before that date.
He appealed on the basis that the word ‘philosophical’ in the statute was an unnecessary fetter on the scope of a ‘belief’ in the light of European authority; that the Judge had impermissibly adopted too high a threshold when applying the Grainger criteria; that he had been wrong to take into account the narrow focus/parochial nature of the belief, which arose out of and was manifested almost entirely in relation to his work for the Dorset Police; and that he had insufficiently explained why he had not met the criteria in any event.
His appeal on the discrimination ground was rejected; that in respect of belief was allowed, on the basis that it was unclear whether the Judge had in mind the proper approach to the criteria as expressed by Lord Nicholls in Williamson, and what his reasons were for holding there had been a failure to meet the criteria, though the Employment Judge was held entitled to take account of whether the asserted belief was narrow and parochial, as opposed to fundamental and hence of broad application. Case remitted to the same Judge for re-determination of the question of whether the belief qualified for protection, to be decided on further submissions.
Langstaff J
[2016] UKEAT 0234 – 15 – 1201
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.563296