In University of Bristol v Miller, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld the decision of an Employment Tribunal that the dismissal of an academic for public comments he had made about Zionism amounted to direct philosophical belief discrimination.
Dr Miller, who was employed by the University of Bristol as a professor of political sociology, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after he made public comments on three occasions expressing his anti-Zionist beliefs. The Employment Tribunal found that his beliefs satisfied all five elements of the test for a protected belief set out in Grainger pls v Nicholson. They were genuinely held beliefs rather than opinions; related to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; had a certain level of cogency and seriousness; and were worthy of respect in a democratic society, without conflicting with the fundamental rights of others.
Expression of Beliefs and Direct Discrimination
The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s finding. Following the previous Court of Appeal decisions in Higgs v Farmor’s School (2025) and Page v NHS Trust Development Authority (2021), the EAT confirmed that dismissing Dr Miller for the non-objectionable expression of his protected beliefs amounted to direct discrimination and could not be justified on proportionality grounds. The EAT agreed with the Tribunal that a less severe sanction, such as a warning, could have been considered.
Employment Appeal Tribunal Decision
This decision confirms that controversial beliefs which are closely connected to political issues may still qualify for protection under the Equality Act 2010 and, moreover, that the protection of freedom of speech is seen as particularly important in cases involving political views. When dealing with an employee expressing beliefs which may be controversial, employers should take particular care to identify precisely what is objectionable, being careful to distinguish between concerns about the substance of the belief from disagreement with it. Any disciplinary action should be clearly focused on genuinely objectionable conduct and be carefully balanced against an employee’s right to freedom of belief and expression.
