In Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and anor Mr Thomas had been engaged through an employment agency to deliver consultancy services to the Trust for just under three months.
He was notified by the employment agency that his assignment had been terminated because it had come to light that he had an unspent conviction which he had failed to declare.
Mr Thomas believed that the real rationale for his termination was his political affiliation – that he had stood for political office between 2004 and 2016 for the political party, the English Democrats – and therefore his dismissal was due to his philosophical belief which he described as “English Nationalism”.
Mr Thomas alleged that this was discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010. The only question to be determined at the ET was whether Mr Thomas’ anti-Islamic views were incompatible with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 2, 5 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, such that they would prevent the his belief in English nationalism from being a protected characteristic.
The tribunal found that English nationalism was capable of constituting a philosophical belief under S.10 Equality Act, meeting most of the criteria set out by the EAT in Grainger plc and ors v Nicholson 2010 ICR 360.
However, the ET held that his anti-Islamic views, which included a desire to forcibly remove Muslims from the United Kingdomdid not satisfy the fifth Grainger criterion, such that they prevented the Claimant’s belief in English nationalism from being a protected characteristic. The fifth criteria for a philosophical belief to be protected under the law is that it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society. It must also not be incompatible with human dignity or conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
Mr Thomas appealed.
The EAT dismissed the appeal.
Mr Thomas’ views were not capable of protection under the European Convention of Human Rights as they would offend Article 17.
Mr Thomas was not prevented from holding his views, but he was outside of the right to complain that he had been discriminated against in relation to those beliefs in the circumstances covered by the Equality Act.
Leave a comment