Can An Employer Discriminate on the Grounds of Philosophical Belief Discrimination?
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held in the recent case of Gray v Mulberry that where an employee is the only person to hold a philosophical belief and cannot establish a group disadvantage, a claim for indirect discrimination cannot succeed.
In the Gray v Mulberry case, the employer (Mulberry) did not discriminate against the employee (Ms Gray) on the grounds of philosophical belief where the employee was the sole person to hold that belief.
The Facts
The Claimant was employed by Mulberry and asked to sign a Copyright Agreement (the Agreement) stipulating that Mulberry would own the copyright to any work she created. The Claimant refused to sign, believing that it would interfere with her work outside of Mulberry as a writer and film-maker. Despite Mulberry amending the clause, the Claimant continued to refuse to sign and was eventually dismissed.
She made a claim for direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of her belief that individuals should own the copyright of their work, suggesting that this was an issue of spiritual practice, identity and human rights. The Claimant asserted that this amounted to a philosophical belief.
Under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), religion or belief (including philosophical belief) is a protected characteristic and individuals are provided with protection from discrimination on the grounds of those beliefs.
What Amounts to a Philosophical Belief?
In the 2010 case of Grainger plc and others v Nicholson, the EAT confirmed that the belief must:
- Be genuinely held.
- Be a belief, not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
- Be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human lift and behaviour.
- Attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
- Be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
The Employment Tribunal (ET)
The ET concluded that the Claimant's belief, though genuinely and strongly held, was "not sufficiently cohesive to form any cogent philosophical belief system", and therefore did not qualify for protection under the Act. Her claims were therefore dismissed.
The Claimant appealed to the EAT.
EAT Decision
The EAT upheld the ET's decision. It was noted that at no stage during the Claimant's employment had she suggested that she held a philosophical belief as set out above. The Claimant's primary concern had been that Mulberry would obtain rights over her work, and there had been no suggestion at the time that her refusal to sign her contract was motivated by a philosophical belief.
In addition, the EAT held that even if they were wrong to find this, as the Claimant was the only person to hold such a belief, she was the only one to suffer a disadvantage. If that were the case, there could be no disadvantaged group as required under the Act and therefore there could be no indirect discrimination and this part of the claim had to fail.
The Claimant has been granted permission to appeal the case to the Court of Appeal.
Best Practice
Whilst this case is very fact-specific, it serves as a good reminder to employers to consider the impact of any changes to employment contracts or practices on their employees in order to mitigate the risk of claims for discrimination.
From a legal perspective, the case is also interesting as it suggests that if a philosophical belief is held by only one person, any claim for indirect discrimination must fail.