Grainger plc v Nicholson
A belief in climate change and the moral duty to live in a way that mitigates it can be a philosophical belief, and the EAT set out the criteria which a belief must satisfy to be protected.
Facts
Mr Nicholson was head of sustainability at a property company. He was made redundant, and claimed that he had been selected because of his strongly held belief in climate change and the need to take urgent action to mitigate it, which he said affected the way he lived his life. The question was whether this belief was a philosophical belief within the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
Legal principle
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that his belief was capable of being a philosophical belief. Burton J set out the criteria: the belief must be genuinely held, must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available, must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour, must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others. These criteria are applied under the Equality Act 2010.
Related cases on discrimination at work
- Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32, [2004] ICR 954
- Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001] UKHL 48, [2001] 1 WLR 1947
- Coleman v Attridge Law Case C-303/06, [2008] ECR I-5603
- Essop v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27, [2017] 1 WLR 1343
- Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
- Forstater v CGD Europe [2022] ICR 1
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15, [2012] ICR 704
- Igen Ltd v Wong [2005] EWCA Civ 142, [2005] ICR 931
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
