By Udara Ranasinghe, Sara Meyer and Josh Hornsey
|
Published 11 August 2026
In this case, the EAT upheld an employment tribunal's decision that an employee's dismissal due to the manifestation of his belief in anti-Zionism was disproportionate, and therefore an act of direct belief discrimination and unfair dismissal. The takeaway for employers is that in taking action related to employees' manifestations of their protected beliefs, it is vitally important that employers consider the proportionality of their actions. Employers should always ask themselves "is there a less intrusive way of dealing with the issue that meets the employer's objective?".
Background
Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 protects religious and philosophical beliefs. A philosophical belief must satisfy the five Grainger criteria, which include that the belief must be: genuinely held; not an opinion based on the present state of information; and worthy of respect in a democratic society. Case law has stressed that these are modest threshold requirements and should not be applied so strictly that minority beliefs are deprived of protection.
Where an employee is treated adversely following the expression or manifestation of a protected belief, the tribunal must identify the employer’s actual reason for acting. If the employer's response is to the belief itself, the employer's action will amount to direct discrimination. If the employer's response is not to the belief itself but to something objectionable in the way the belief was manifested, the employer will only escape liability for discrimination if its actions were proportionate in order to achieve a legitimate aim.
Facts
Dr Miller was a professor of political sociology at the University of Bristol (the University). In February 2021, he made public statements expressing his beliefs that political Zionism was 1) inherently racist, imperialistic and colonial, and 2) that it ought to be opposed. He also criticised Jewish students and student societies, describing Jewish student groups as political lobby groups and students as political pawns. The University dismissed him for gross misconduct in October 2021. In August 2023, Dr Miller posted on social media comments to the effect that Jewish people were not discriminated against.
Dr Miller claimed that his dismissal was unfair and constituted direct belief discrimination. The employment tribunal found that his anti-Zionist beliefs (as expressed in February 2021, but not in the August 2023 posts) were protected. His dismissal was found to be direct belief discrimination, because his expression of his protected belief materially influenced the dismissal, which the tribunal considered was a disproportionate response. The dismissal was also unfair, partly because the University had not adequately considered a warning as an alternative to dismissal. The Tribunal reduced Dr Miller's basic and compensatory awards for unfair dismissal by 50% because his comments about students and student societies were culpable and blameworthy and had materially contributed to his dismissal. It also found that there was a 30% chance that Dr Miller would have been fairly dismissed by October 2023 because of his later social media posts.
The appeal
The University appealed on numerous grounds and Dr Miller cross-appealed. We focus here on the points we consider most useful for employers to consider.
The EAT first rejected the University’s argument that the political character of Dr Miller's belief placed it outside section 10. A political belief, including one concerning a single social or political issue, can qualify for protection if it meets the Grainger criteria. The Tribunal had been entitled to find that the belief was genuinely held, had played a significant role in Dr Miller’s life, teaching and writing, and was sufficiently clear and coherent. Its basis in academic research did not make it a mere opinion. The Tribunal had also accepted that Dr Miller did not oppose Jewish self-determination as such and did not support violence as a means of opposing Zionism. The belief therefore met the threshold of being worthy of respect in a democratic society.
The EAT upheld the tribunal's finding of direct discrimination. The University’s reason for dismissal was both Dr Miller’s manifestation of his protected belief, and his separate comments about students and student groups. Although the University pursued legitimate aims, including protecting its reputation and the rights of others, dismissal was disproportionate. It could have issued a warning and set clearer expectations about public comments concerning students and student societies.
The EAT also upheld the tribunal's unfair dismissal finding. The tribunal had correctly applied the range of reasonable responses test and was entitled to find that dismissal was outside of this range. The tribunal would have reached that conclusion even without its finding of direct discrimination.
The EAT also upheld the 50% reduction to the basic and compensatory awards for contributory conduct. The tribunal was entitled to find that Dr Miller’s comments about students and student societies were culpable and blameworthy and had materially contributed to his dismissal. However, the EAT set aside the tribunal's finding that there was a 30% chance that he would have been lawfully dismissed by October 2023 because of his later social media posts. This was because of inadequate reasons. Instead, the issue of Polkey was remitted back to the tribunal to consider further.
What does this mean for employers?
This judgment confirms that political beliefs may be protected, and disciplining employees for expressing such beliefs in the workplace is not without risk. Discussions of contemporary issues are often contentious, and employers considering disciplinary action should take care to separate employees' beliefs (likely to be protected) from how they manifest them (may not be protected if the expression of beliefs is objectionable).
Even when action is taken about how an employee manifests their belief, employers should consider if their response to that manifestation is proportionate. A key question is whether a warning or some other sanction short of dismissal might be sufficient to achieve the employer's legitimate aim. Employers should take particular care on the issue of proportionality and ensure their thinking on this issue is well documented. If it appears that the employer's reaction has been knee jerk and lesser sanctions have not been properly considered, a dismissal is likely to be found discriminatory.
Interestingly, the University's appeal expressly challenged the Court of Appeal's decision in Higgs which many saw as raising the bar in practice on taking action against manifestations of beliefs. That argument was always liable to fail in the EAT (which is bound by Court of Appeal decisions) but it does now leave the door open to appeal on this basis to the Court of Appeal.
University of Bristol v Dr David Miller [2026] EAT 84
