28th August 2025
What Is A Protected Belief? Understanding The Scope Of The Equality Act 2010
Under the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because of a protected characteristic. Currently, there are nine protected characteristics contained in the Act, one of which is religion or belief. This protected characteristic covers religious beliefs as well as non-religious philosophical beliefs.
Due to recent case law, the question has frequently been asked: what constitutes a belief, and how can an employer identify the difference between an employee lawfully and unlawfully expressing a belief in the workplace?
What is a belief?
In the Equality Act, religion or belief can mean any religion, for example, an organised religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Buddhism, or a smaller religion like Rastafarianism or Paganism, as long as it has a clear structure and belief system. The Equality Act also covers non-belief or a lack of religion or belief.
To qualify as a non-religious philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010, the belief must satisfy the criteria set out in the case of Grainger plc v Nicholson, and these are:
- The belief must be genuinely held
- It must be a belief, not merely an opinion or viewpoint based on the current state of information.
- It must relate to a weighty & substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
- It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance.
- It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity, and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
However, application of this criteria is not always clear as a balance must be made as to the protection of one individual’s protected belief and the use of that belief to discriminate against another person. Recent cases have illustrated how beliefs that would usually be socially controversial may be protected, meaning Employers must be careful when discriminating against another’s belief. Below are cases in which the courts have had to navigate competing interests arising from two opposing protected beliefs.
Recent cases
Due to the slight ambiguity surrounding when a belief is and isn’t protected and in what capacity a belief can become discriminatory, we have listed some recent case law below:
Higgs v Farmors School
Within this case, the court questioned whether the dismissal of Ms Higgs, who was a pastoral administrator in a school, was lawful. Within this case, the employee in question shared views on social media that gender is binary and not fluid, that same sex marriage cannot be equated with traditional marriage, and it is wrong to teach anything different to children.
The Court of Appeal upheld Ms Higgs’ appeal against her dismissal, stating that her dismissal amounted to unlawful discrimination against a religious or protected philosophical belief.
Miller v University of Bristol
Within this case, the Employment Tribunal held that Professor Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs did qualify as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. During Miller’s time as a lecturer at the university, he delivered a lecture in 2019 in which he suggested that Islamophobia is driven by Zionism. Following this lecture, the University received a complaint when stating Jewish students were extremely upset and felt the lecture was anti-Semitic. Following further complaints, the university investigated and concluded that Professor Miller’s actions did not express hatred towards Jews and there was no discrimination. In 2021, the Professor made further comments about how he was attacked for his views in 2019 and spoke to journalists about the issue. Following this, a second investigation commenced into a breach of the University’s code of conduct and was dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct.
The Employment Tribunal held that the reason for the dismissal was intertwined with potential discrimination against him and therefore the Professor had been unfairly dismissed.
Randall v Trent College
Mr Randall was employed by Trent College school as its Chaplain. During his time as Chaplain, he delivered multiple sermons in which he opposed same-sex marriage and stated that Christians believe that homosexuality is sinful unless homosexuals remain celibate. In 2018, the school provided an ‘Educate and Celebrate’ programme to all its pupils, which aimed at tackling homophobic attitudes, to which Mr Randall showed clear objection, informing pupils that they didn’t have to believe in the programme. He was dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct due to a number of complaints, but was rehired on appeal. In November 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr Randall was made redundant.
Mr Randall made claims for discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the grounds of his protected characteristic or religion or belief under the Equality Act 2010, as well as a claim for unfair dismissal. The Employment Tribunal concluded that the claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 were not due to beliefs but rather the time and place Mr Randall had expressed those beliefs and the intentions he had when doing so. The Employment Tribunal also decided that there was no claim for unfair dismissal, the role had been selected genuinely for redundancy.
What does this mean for employers going forward?
Going forward, the above judgments show that the Employment Tribunal is of the standpoint that if protected beliefs are controversial, this does not necessarily mean they are discriminatory, and instead, people should feel comfortable expressing those opinions. Instead of being restrictive, employers should prepare and be inviting to controversial beliefs, promoting freedom of expression in the workplace.
Therefore, employers must deal with matters objectively, considering what the employee has said and focusing on the way in which the employee has expressed their beliefs and how. This way, employers can decide, given the context of the circumstances, if the employee intended to express their belief or intended to discriminate against another.
