How should employers handle religion or belief discrimination in the workplace?

The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) came into force in December 2003 and made it unlawful to (i) Directly or indirectly discriminate against an actual or prospective employee on the grounds of religion or belief, and (ii) Discriminate by way of victimisation or harass an employee on grounds of religious belief.

The Regulations were later repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010, which consolidated anti-discrimination laws and made it unlawful for an employer to:

• Discriminate directly by treating a job applicant or employee less favourably because of religion or belief.
• Discriminate indirectly by applying a provision, criterion, or practice that disadvantages job applicants or employees of a particular religion or belief, unless objectively justified.
• Harass a job applicant or employee based on religion or belief.
• Victimise a job applicant or employee for making or intending to make a religion or belief discrimination complaint under the Act.

Definition of religion or belief

“Religion or belief” is a protected characteristic under section 4 of the Equality Act 2010, with definitions provided in section 10:

• “Religion” includes any religion, as well as a lack of religion.
• “Belief” includes religious and philosophical beliefs, as well as a lack of belief.

Employers often face challenges in determining what qualifies as a protected belief and in balancing competing rights, such as those related to sexual orientation and religion or belief discrimination.

Case Law and the Grainger Criteria

One of the earliest cases to define “belief” was Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010]. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) set out a framework for determining whether a belief qualifies for protection under the Equality Act:

1. The belief must be genuinely held.
2. It must be more than a mere opinion or viewpoint and relate to a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
3. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity, and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
4. It must have a similar status or cogency to a religious belief (but does not need to be part of an organised religion).
5. It does not need to be shared by others.
6. A belief in a political philosophy or doctrine (e.g., Socialism or free-market Capitalism) might qualify, but mere support for a political party does not.
7. A philosophical belief may be based on science, such as Darwinism.

In General Municipal and Boilermakers Union v Henderson, the EAT emphasised that all qualifying beliefs are equally protected, stating:
“The law does not accord special protection for one category of belief and less protection for another. Philosophical beliefs may be just as fundamental to a person’s individuality and daily life as religious beliefs.”

Examples of protected and non-protected beliefs

Beliefs that have been held to qualify for protection

• Left-wing democratic socialism (Henderson).
• A profound belief in the proper and efficient use of public money in the public sector (Harron v Dorset Police).
• Ethical veganism (Casamitjana Costa v League Against Cruel Sports).
• A lack of belief in gender fluidity (Higgs v Farmor’s School).
• Belief that sex is an immutable biological fact (Forstater v CGD Europe).
• Belief that gender theory is harmful to women (Bailey v Stonewall).
• Opposition to critical race theory (Corby v ACAS).

Beliefs that have been held not to qualify for protection

• A belief that people should wear a poppy for Remembrance Sunday (Lisk v Shield Guardian).
• Vegetarianism (Conisbee v Crossley Farms).
• Supporting Rangers Football Club (McClung v Doosan Babcock).
• An extreme form of English nationalism (Cave v The Open University).
• Fear of catching COVID-19 (X v Y).

These cases demonstrate that not all deeply held personal beliefs qualify for protection, particularly if they lack sufficient cogency, seriousness, or structure.

The Higgs case and employer considerations

The Higgs v Farmor’s School case has clarified the limits of employer action against employees expressing controversial religious or philosophical beliefs.

Kristie Higgs, a Christian school administrator, was dismissed after posting gender-critical views on Facebook.

• In 2023, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled her views were protected, but her dismissal was justified.
• In February 2025, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, ruling that her dismissal was unlawful.

The Court found:

• Employers cannot dismiss employees simply for expressing protected beliefs.
• There was no evidence her views harmed pupils or colleagues.
• Employers must carefully assess the tone, audience, and impact of an employee’s views before taking action.

This case reinforces protections for employees expressing religious or philosophical beliefs.

New developments: Wint v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (2025)

In January 2025, the Tribunal ruled in Wint v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council that voodooism qualifies as a protected belief. The Tribunal stated:
“Whilst voodooism lacks a written code of ethics, it has a moral compass, involves serving the Iwa, and is not based on a general concept of doing ill will to others. We conclude that it is worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity, and does not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.”

This case highlights the growing diversity of protected beliefs, underscoring the need for employers to review policies and ensure they accommodate a broad spectrum of religious and philosophical beliefs.

What can employers do?

Given the evolving legal landscape, employers should take proactive steps to manage belief-related issues fairly and lawfully. Key actions include:

• Developing clear policies on equality, diversity, and the expression of beliefs in the workplace.
• Providing training on handling competing rights and discrimination claims.
• Conducting thorough investigations before taking disciplinary action related to belief expression.
• Assessing proportionality — considering less intrusive measures before restricting an employee’s expression of belief.

By adopting a balanced, informed approach, employers can mitigate legal risks while ensuring an inclusive workplace.

If you have concerns about religion or belief discrimination in the workplace, contact Marie van der Zyl OBE.