Revisiting the Philosophical Belief: strongly held opinions not enough
Posted on 11th March 2025 at 16:17
A recovery worker for a rehabilitation charity was dismissed after 9 months’ service, as a result of her social media posts on X/Twitter. She asserted that she had been bullied and harassed after the charity found out she had once been a UKIP councillor, and that her dismissal comprised philosophical belief discrimination. Because membership of a political party is insufficient in its own right to qualify for protection, she cited four distinct elements of party policy as specific values and protected beliefs.
The tribunal in Fairbanks v Change Grow Live accepted that the first stage of the test laid down in the Grainger decision, the benchmark authority for philosophical belief disputes, was met. Mrs Fairbanks’ beliefs were genuinely held.
However, the second stage proved fatal. There is a material difference between mere opinions or viewpoints based upon the present state of information available, and actual philosophical beliefs. Although the tribunal extended a helping hand to Mrs Fairbanks (as a self represented party) by reflecting upon whether English Nationalism could comprise such a belief, it could not reasonably construct a philosophical belief for her. Plainly there was a floodgates issue in the back of the tribunal’s mind.
There was no need to consider the third and fourth stages of Grainger, namely the link to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life, and the level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. The fifth stage – whether a belief is worthy of respect in a democratic society, which hit the headlines when Maya Forstater’s “gender critical” beliefs were initially found not to meet that test – was touched upon by reference to Mrs Fairbanks’ apparent support for a notorious British individual best not named. This was not relevant here. The views actually before the tribunal were deemed worthy of respect, not that this helped her after her fall at the second stage fence.
Although this dispute only occupied one day’s worth of tribunal time at a preliminary hearing, with a reserved judgment published 6 weeks later, the tribunal still had to consider statute law, EHRC guidance, and five legal authorities. Disputes of this nature frequently tend to be polarised, with few shades of grey enabling scope for give and take. Whatever scope there may be for commercial offers, an employer up against a claimant determined to “have my day in court” might have to remain polite but firm.
For any issue involving the expression of a philosophical belief – actual or merely perceived – in the workplace, we can lend a hand. Contact David Cooper on 0121 325 5402 or via dmc@coxcooper.co.uk .
Share this post: