Under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, employees are afforded protection from discrimination by reason of ‘any religion, religious or philosophical belief’. Whether or not a particular belief is covered will be decided on the facts of the individual case.
 
In Nicholson v Grainger plc, the Employment Judge decided at a pre-hearing review that an individual’s beliefs about climate change were capable of being a belief for the purposes of the Regulations. Mr Nicholson brought a claim of unfair dismissal against his ex-employer. His contention was that he had been discriminated against because he was made redundant on account of his views on the environment. The Employment Judge rejected Grainger’s argument that views based on empirical evidence could not constitute a philosophical belief.
 
Grainger plc appealed against this decision.
 
Mr Nicholson’s philosophical belief was defined as a belief that ‘mankind is heading towards catastrophic climate change and therefore we are all under a moral duty to lead our lives in a manner which mitigates or avoids this catastrophe for the benefit of future generations, and to persuade others to do the same’. Grainger plc argued that this was a scientific view rather than a philosophical belief.
 
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the criteria for use when determining whether or not a particular belief is protected under the Regulations are that it must:
 

• be genuinely held;
• be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available;
• be a belief about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

 
The EAT found that the ‘asserted belief’ held by Mr Nicholson is capable of being a philosophical belief for the purposes of the Regulations. However, when the case is heard he will need to provide evidence to the Tribunal of the genuineness of his belief and show that it meets the other stated criteria. To succeed in his claim, he will have to demonstrate that he was made redundant on account of his belief and not, as Grainger plc maintains, because of the operational needs of the company.
 
Contact us for advice on any aspect of discrimination law.