University professor had been unlawfully discriminated against and unfairly dismissed due to his philosophical beliefs relating to Zionism.

The claimant was a professor of political sociology at the respondent University.  The claimant held anti-Zionist views and had expressed criticisms of the state of Israel.  He gave a lecture in which he stated that the Zionist movement was one of the five pillars driving islamophobia in the United Kingdom.  There were also other statements made against Zionism.  This led to a disciplinary process being opened up by the University and eventually led to the claimant being dismissed for gross misconduct. 

The claimant claimed that it was unfair dismissal but also that he had suffered direct discrimination based upon his philosophical beliefs as well as harassment relating to those beliefs.

At first instance, the Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed due to the statements he had made and also found that those statements expressed protected philosophical beliefs. As a result, they were unlawful acts of direct discrimination. The Tribunal found though that the basic and compensatory awards should be reduced by 50% and found that there was a 30% chance that the claimant would have been dismissed fairly for comments he made at a later point.

The respondent appealed against the decision.  The appeal related to the finding of liability as well as the remedy in which they argued that contributory fault should have been found at 100%.  The claimant also appealed arguing, among other things, that the compensation should not have been reduced.

The EAT dismissed the appeal relating to liability and upheld the finding that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed and unlawfully discriminated against.  However, the EAT did find that the Tribunal had not sufficiently explained the basis for there being a 30% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed.  As a result, it was remitted back to the Tribunal to reassess the decision in relation to the chance of a fair dismissal.

A series of claims have arisen relating to the Higher Education sector and points relating to freedom of speech, academic freedom and philosophical beliefs.  The meaning of philosophical belief as defined by the Supreme Court in Grainger is quite wide but also preserves the extent to which someone can manifest their beliefs but importantly it must not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.  It was found there that these beliefs met the criteria in Grainger and had been the reason for the dismissal. The Grainger criteria and its extent should be considered should such an issue arising within the workplace.

You can read the case in full here.