What is belief discrimination?
Belief is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, which makes it unlawful for a person to treat another less favourably because of their belief in a variety of situations, including at work.
The Act confirms that belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief (section 10(2))
A religious belief is probably easier to identify than a philosophical one, and perhaps the absence of a philosophical belief is the hardest of all to define.
Grainger Criteria
In the Employment Appeal Tribunal case of Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360 Burton J set out five criteria for determining whether a belief is a protected characteristic:
(i) The belief must be genuinely held;
(ii) It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available;
(iii) It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human behaviour;
(iv) It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance;
(v) It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
London Ambulance Service v Ricky Garrett [2026] EAT 77
In the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal case of the London Ambulance Service v Ricky Garret the ambulance service successfully appealed against findings of belief discrimination, in reliance on a number of authorities including the Grainger criteria.
Facts
On 30 January 2020, shortly after the death of George Floyd in the United States, the claimant employee was overheard at work discussing the recent actions of Black Lives Matter, explaining that he did not agree with the concept of systemic racism. A complaint was made later the same day, when the person who had overheard the discussion made this and other allegations about what the claimant had said. The person he was speaking with made no complaint. The claimant later accepted that he had said he did not agree with the concept of systemic racism but disputed other allegations made about what he had said.
An investigation was commissioned and the matter proceeded to a disciplinary hearing when various findings of misconduct were made. The hearing officer accepted that it would not be gross misconduct to have a conversation about the Claimant’s views on systemic racism as long as that conversation was conducted sensitively so as not to give offence. However, he found the claimant had acted in an offensive manner to other colleagues in this and other respects, in the absence of any evidence from the person the claimant had been having the discussion with. He received a final written warning, to remain on his file for eighteen months. In addition, he was required to complete unconscious bias training, a black allyship workshop, and a written reflective practice.
Although the investigator had not interviewed the person with whom he had discussed systemic racism, his appeal was largely unsuccessful. The period of the written warning was reduced but the other sanctions remained the same. He refused to complete the training, workshop and reflective practice and no action was taken for this.
Proceedings in the Employment Tribunal
He then issued proceedings in the Employment Tribunal against his employer complaining of direct discrimination on grounds of belief and race. In the particulars of claim, for the first time, he described his belief as: We are all one race and all colours and cultures should be treated as one. All people should be treated with respect and how you would want to be treated.” He went on to explain that his reference to systemic racism had been a manifestation of that belief (and so met the second criterion of Burton J above: it was not simply an opinion or viewpoint).
The claimant was successful. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant’s rejection of systemic racism was a manifestation of his belief in one race and not just an opinion. It found the claimant’s employer had directly discriminated against him because of that manifestation of belief.
Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal
The National Ambulance Service appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It argued there was a fundamental flaw in the Tribunal’s reasoning that the “no-systemic-racism-belief” flowed from the ‘we-are-all-one-race” belief. The former was a normative belief describing what ought to happen. The latter was a descriptive belief describing what did or did not exist. In a nutshell it argued: a person who holds the same belief relied on by the claimant could equally be of the opinion that systemic racism does exist.
The appeal was successful and the claim dismissed. The EAT decided: The only proper conclusion that the tribunal could have reached, on the facts found, was that the claimant’s (descriptive) no-systemic-racism belief was not a manifestation of the (normative) treatment belief on which he now relied (and which the tribunal found, in this particular form, to be protected).
Points to consider
1. When did you last review your disciplinary procedure?
2. What training do investigating officers and hearing officers receive?
3. Have they received diversity training?
Mariel Irvine
11 August 2026
