As public debate surrounding topics as diverse as the Israel-Gaza conflict and gender identity have become increasingly polarised, workplace discourse has become increasingly fraught. These wider societal developments have left many employers questioning the extent to which employees can freely express their political opinions in the workplace and the pitfalls of trying to limit such expressions.

Legal protection

Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights protect the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression, respectively. These articles also provide that any limitations on these rights should be proportionate and necessary in pursuit of a legitimate aim.

Religion or belief also constitute a protected characteristic for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. This potentially means that dismissing someone because of a belief or religion can constitute unlawful discrimination.

However, not all beliefs are protected under the Equality Act and only those beliefs which comply with the five point criteria set out in Grainger plc & others v Nicholson [2010 ICR 360] will qualify for protection:

1. The belief must be genuinely held.

2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.

3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.

4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

5. 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.

Following the Grainger case, various beliefs have qualified for protection, including, but not limited to, a belief in Scottish independence, ethical veganism, democratic socialism and gender critical beliefs.

However, the protection is not absolute and in the case of Page v NHS Trust Development Authority [2021] EWCA Civ 255, the Court of Appeal distinguished between:

a) cases where the reason for any unfavourable treatment is the fact that an individual holds or manifests a protected belief;and

b) cases where the reason is an objectionable manifestation of the belief.

The former would constitute direct discrimination whereas the latter may be permissible if the action taken is proportionate.

Miller v University of Bristol [2026] EAT 84

Dr Miller was dismissed on 1 October 2021 after he made a series of controversial statements regarding the ongoing conflict in Gaza and his belief that the members of the University of Bristol’s Jewish Society were ‘political pawns for a violent, racist, foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing’.

Following his dismissal, Dr Miller brought a claim in the employment tribunal for, amongst other things, direct philosophical belief discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and unfair dismissal. At first instance, the tribunal held that Dr Miller’s anti-Zionist belief satisfied the Grainger criteria and therefore amounted to a philosophical belief. While Dr Miller’s views were fervent and may have offended some individuals, he did not endorse any form of violence to oppose Zionism (which would have fallen foul of the Grainger criteria). Dr Miller’s claim for direct discrimination ultimately succeeded because the tribunal concluded that the manifestation of his belief was a material factor in the decision to dismiss Dr Miller from his post, as well as his comments regarding the students and student groups.

The University appealed, but on 4 August 2026 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) largely upheld the tribunal’s decision. The EAT confirmed that:

· Dr Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs were protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010.

· The tribunal had applied the correct causation test, namely whether the manifestation of those beliefs had a material influence on the dismissal decision; and

· Because the dismissal related to a non-objectionable manifestation of a protected belief, it amounted to unlawful discrimination.

The EAT only overturned one aspect of the tribunal’s decision, namely its finding that there was a 30% chance Dr Miller’s employment would have ended lawfully in October 2023, requiring that issue to be reconsidered.

Practical steps to mitigate risks

1. Separate Belief from Conduct

Employees may hold protected beliefs, even where those beliefs are controversial. However, the manner in which those beliefs are expressed may justify disciplinary action if this breaches policies, undermines workplace relationships or amounts to misconduct.

2. Avoid knee jerk reactions

The Miller case serves as a warning against disciplinary decisions that appear to be driven by complaints, media attention or reputational concerns rather than an objective assessment of the employee’s conduct.

Employers should carefully investigate complaints, assess the context in which statements were made and consider whether the conduct genuinely breaches workplace rules. A rushed or outcome-driven process risks both unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.

3. Review Workplace Policies

Your existing disciplinary and social media policies should clearly set expectations regarding workplace communications while recognising employees’ rights to lawful expression.

4. Consider Proportionality

Before imposing disciplinary sanctions, employers should ask:

· What legitimate business aim is being protected?

· Has actual harm been caused?

· Is disciplinary action a proportionate response?

· Are there alternative measures short of dismissal?

These questions are particularly important where an employee’s expression concerns political, philosophical or social issues.

5. Seek legal advice

If you wish to discipline someone following an expression of their philosophical beliefs, this will likely involve a complex balancing exercise and we recommend that employers seek legal advice promptly to ensure they understand the risks.

If you have any further questions regarding the above, please feel free to reach out to our expert team at employment@berrysmith.com or on 02920 345 511.

Please note the contents of this article do not constitute legal advice.