Belief discrimination: where does protection end?
Faced with charged debates touching on issues such as race and gender identity, employers are increasingly in the unenviable position of having to balance competing rights in the workplace. A familiar scenario involves an employee expressing a highly controversial belief touching on a protected characteristic, which a colleague finds deeply offensive. This leaves the employer with an uncomfortable choice: act and risk a belief discrimination claim or do nothing and face a harassment claim. These tensions have generated a steady stream of litigation testing the limits of the protection against belief discrimination. Most cases turn either on whether a belief is protected at all or, assuming it is, how far a particular expression (or manifestation) of that belief is protected. The EAT’s decision in London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Garrett [2026] EAT 77 focuses on the connection between the two.
The claimant, an ambulance worker, was given a final written warning following incidents in which (among other things) he expressed the view that there was no systemic racism and that individuals should not ‘hide behind their race’. He brought claims including direct discrimination based on philosophical belief. In his claim, he framed his belief as the belief that all people should be treated equally and as one race. The Tribunal held that this belief was protected and went on to hold that his rejection of systemic racism was a manifestation of that belief, upholding his claim. The EAT disagreed. It held that the belief, as framed, was a normative belief (about how people should be treated), whereas the rejection of systemic racism was a factual or descriptive belief (about conditions existing in society). Those are different in kind, and one did not (and could not) “flow logically” from the other. As a result, the claimant’s comments were insufficiently linked to his belief to attract protection.
What does this mean in practice? First, it underscores how important it is to define the belief clearly and early. Had the claimant framed his belief in factual terms or simply sought to assert protection for his rejection of systemic racism, the case might have taken a different course. Employers should therefore seek clarity on the belief an employee is relying on as early as possible – for example in any disciplinary or grievance procedures – so that they can assess risk with confidence and challenge later attempts to reframe the belief. Secondly, the case is a helpful reminder to test the link between comments or conduct and any underlying belief – even if they appear at first sight to be connected, that may not mean that one flows logically from the other. In short, if the link does not hold, neither will the claim.
How can we help?
We are working with businesses of all sizes across a range of sectors to manage the risks associated with these changes. Drawing on our experience of market practice, we can support you in critically assessing and enhancing your preventative framework.
Get in touch to discuss the practical steps your organisation can take now to prepare.
Subcribe to news and views
