The case of T W Nicholson v Grainger Plc and others has shown that the definition of what constitutes a “religious or philosophical belief” for the purposes of discrimination legislation.

Discrimination in the workplace based on a person’s beliefs or religion is prohibited by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. In 2007 the regulations were amended to the effect that “belief” now means “any religious or philosophical belief”.

Tim Nicholson had been head of sustainability at Grainger Plc until he was made redundant. He subsequently brought a number of claims against the organisation, including unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.

Mr Nicholson maintained that the discrimination claim was due to his “strongly held philosophical belief about climate change and the environment”. He stated that his beliefs were, “not merely an opinion, but a philosophical belief which affects how I live my life including my choice of home, how I travel, what I buy, what I eat and drink, what I do with my waste and my hopes and my fears.”

It was up to the tribunal to determine whether or not his beliefs were protected by law.

Previous case law on the subject has determined that the test of whether a set of beliefs qualifies as a philosophical belief for legal purposes is whether the beliefs have “sufficiency, cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance and are worthy of respect in a democratic society”.

The employment judge presiding over the case found that it would be hard to argue that Mr Nicholson’s ecological beliefs did not fall into this category. Indeed, his beliefs gave him a sort of “moral order” similar to those conferred by most established religions.

The fact that Mr Nicholson’s beliefs directly affected how he lived his life also benefitted his case - without this element, his beliefs would have merely counted as an opinion, and so would not have been protected under the law.

Prior to this judgment, tribunals have tended to interpret the definition of religion and philosophical beliefs quite narrowly, and, while this case will not be binding for subsequent tribunals, it does suggest that the law could be applied more broadly in future.

In past cases, both patriotism and support for the British National Party were found not to fall within the definition of philosophical belief, although this was before the regulations were amended.

Given this ruling, it is conceivable that strong opinions on vegetarianism, sexual abstinence or the views of survivalists could also constitute “belief” in this context. However, claimants are likely to find it difficult to prove that their beliefs were the cause of their treatment, so there is unlikely to be a flood of new cases following this finding.

Technorati Tags: Discrimination, Environmentalism, Religious Belief, Unfair Dismissal