A recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that a belief in ‘man-made climate change, and the resulting moral imperatives’ can amount to a philosophical belief capable of protection under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

The EAT set out the following test for establishing whether any particular belief would be covered by the Regulations:

1. the belief must be genuinely held (and this should be tested in cross-examination where necessary);
2. it must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available;
3. it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
4. it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Therefore, a mere opinion that it is not eco-friendly to travel by air, for example, will not be enough to fall within the regulations.  However, in this case, the Claimant’s belief was said to affect his whole way of life - from the eco-friendly renovations to his house, to the food he ate, the way he managed his waste, and the fact that he didn’t travel by plane.

The EAT went on to make some potentially significant observations regarding membership of political parties.  The EAT said that support of a political party may well not fall within the criteria set out above.  However, belief in a political doctrine or philosophy might fulfil the requirements to be capable of protection. 

This might cause some concern for employers who have a policy of not employing members or supporters of certain political parties, as individuals may seek to argue that they have been discriminated against on the basis of their belief in a particular political philosophy.  However, the EAT made clear that protection would only be given where a belief was ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society and [was] not incompatible with human dignity’.  Therefore beliefs in philosophies which were, for example, racist or homophobic, should not be protected.

One question which remains unanswered, however, is whether the protection afforded by the regulations will extend to those who believe in the ‘political philosophy’ of the BNP.  It is hard to see how a court would be able to argue that belief in the philosophies of a party elected to the European and UK Parliaments was not ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’, however abhorrent those philosophies may be.  However, it may be that a belief in such philosophies will not be afforded protection under the regulations on the basis that it is incompatible with human dignity.  This, of course, remains to be seen.

Posted: November 6th, 2009 under Employment/HR, Miscellaneous.
Comments: none