The Memo: Pro-Brexit views are not protected against workplace discrimination, according to employment tribunal

Last month, a judge ruled that a pro-Brexit is not a philosophical belief, but a “strongly held opinion,” and therefore not covered by the Equality Act 2010. This was part of a claim made by ex-UKIP councillor Colette Fairbanks, who alleged that she was bullied and harassed in her former workplace for having pro-Brexit views. Fairbanks was later fired for sharing “offensive” posts on Twitter calling out “fake asylum seekers” and claiming that immigrants receive priority for housing and public services. The tribunal believed that these comments would undoubtedly “be found offensive by many.”  

Following her dismissal, Fairbanks took her employer, the drug and alcohol rehabilitation charity Change Grow Live, to an employment tribunal in Manchester. She made the case that her beliefs, including her opposition to illegal migrationand support for Brexit and leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, should be protected by the 2010 Equality Act. To summarise, this piece of legislation makes it illegal to discriminate against anyone in the workplace under nine protected characteristics, including religion or belief, which formed the basis of Fairbanks's argument. 

The judge, Paul Jumble, raised an interesting argument, claiming that if pro-Brexit views were indeed a “philosophical belief,” then more than half of British voters’ political views would be protected by the Equality Act. While it may be true that protecting a majority vote under the Equality Act sounds a bit odd, this does raise questions about the difficulties in consistently interpreting and applying the law. For example, women are protected under the Equality Act and, according to the most recent census, make up 51% of the UK population. That percentage is almost identical to the EU referendum stats, as 51.9% of the British electorate voted to leave. Evidently, the logic of dismissing or justifying a claim based on percentages might not always apply. 

The other question raised by this ruling is where the law draws the line between a philosophical belief and a “strongly held opinion.” According to the government’s website, a belief has to be genuine and “worthy of respect in a democratic society” (i.e., it cannot interfere with others’ fundamental rights) and it must have a “certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.” Ultimately, the tribunal found that Fairbanks’s opinions did not meet these criteria. 

This ruling is part of wider a trend of cases testing the limits of the Equality Act, such as a recent one we covered on fox hunting. We may well see more similar cases in the future, so watch this space!