The Employment Tribunal (ET) held that anti-Zionist beliefs amount to a philosophical belief qualifying for protection under the Equality Act 2010.

The employee’s gender critical beliefs fall within the Grainger criteria and are therefore protected. The Tribunal upheld her discrimination complaints and constructive dismissal claim, as the employer had breached the implied term of trust and confidence and the duty to provide a suitable working environment.

The EAT set out ‘basic principles’ underpinning the approach when assessing the proportionality of any interference with rights to freedom of religion and belief and of freedom of expression.

The employer failed to balance conflicting protected characteristics and protect both trans workers and workers with gender critical beliefs from discrimination and harassment

The EAT acknowledged that this case may touch on issues of wider social concern and debate. It made clear that it expressed no view as to the merits of any side of that debate, as it is not the role of the EAT to do so.

The EAT held that gender-critical beliefs, including the belief that sex is binary, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity, qualify for protection as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.

A school chaplain’s claim for religion or belief discrimination failed when the Employment Tribunal held that the chaplain’s treatment was not because of his beliefs, but because of his objectionable manifestation of them.

A belief that Stonewall wanted to replace sex with gender identity, that the absolutist tone of its advocacy of gender self-identity made them complicit in threats against women and that it eroded women’s rights and lesbian same-sex orientation was a protected belief.

This case concerned the expression, on a public social media platform, of religious views disapproving of homosexual acts by a student enrolled on a course at the University of Sheffield

The European Court of Human Rights upheld the decisions of the UK Courts that employers can refuse to accommodate demonstrations of religious beliefs if they are discriminatory against others.

The EAT sets out the legal test that must be satisfied in order for a belief to be a philosophical belief worthy of protection under the Equality Act 2010.

Dismissing an employee for not carrying out contractual duties is not direct or indirect discrimination. It may be reasonable for an employer to ensure an employee complies with its non-discriminatory policies and practices, although this may offend or conflict with the beliefs of the individual.