English Nationalism and Employment Law: Tribunal Case Study

Case study 

Mr. S. Thomas v. Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust & Ms. A. Brett 

In the case of Mr. S. Thomas v. Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust & Ms. A. Brett (2304056/2018), the Employment Tribunal examined whether Mr. Thomas' belief in "English nationalism," which included anti-Islamic views, constituted a protected philosophical belief under S.10 of the Equality Act 2010. 

Background

Mr. Thomas was engaged as an interim Category Manager by the NHS Trust through an agency in May 2018. His contract was terminated in July 2018, after the Trust became aware of his previous conviction for electoral fraud and his political affiliations with the English Democrats, a right wing English nationalist political party active in England. 

Mr. Thomas alleged that his dismissal was due to his belief in English nationalism, which he claimed should be a  protected belief under the Equality Act. The tribunal needed to determine if his beliefs met the legal threshold for protection as a philosophical belief, applying the five criteria set out in Grainger v. Nicholson  ([2009] UKEAT 0219_09_0311). The criteria being (in brief) that; 

(i) The belief must be genuinely held. 

(ii) It must be a belief and not, [simply], 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 life and 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 

Key Tribunal Findings: 

1. English Nationalism and Anti-Islamic Views: The tribunal accepted that Mr. Thomas held genuine beliefs in English nationalism. However, it found that his anti-Islamic views, including posts on social media expressing derogatory remarks about Islam and Muslims and a view that there was no place in Britain for Islam or Muslims, were part of his English nationalist philosophy. 
2. Grainger Criteria: While the tribunal agreed that Mr. Thomas’ belief was genuinely held and related to a substantial aspect of human life, it concluded that his anti-Islamic views were incompatible with human dignity and the fundamental rights of others. As a result, his belief failed the fifth Grainger criterion. 
3. Decision: The EAT  held that such views were incompatible with Article 17 of the European Convention of Human Rights and therefore fall outside of it’s protection. Therefore, the tribunal ruled that while Mr Thomas had every right to hold whatever beliefs he wanted, his belief in English nationalism, with its anti-Islamic component, was not protected under the Equality Act 2010. Therefore, his claim of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief was dismissed. 

This case was a useful reminder of the criteria set out in Grainger and how the tribunal should approach such cases.  Given the recent political climate and disorder in the UK, this is a reassuring decision which makes it clear that those holding extreme views, incompatible with the dignity and rights of others, will not find protection under the Equality Act.