In a case report from Trowers & Hamlins, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether or not an employee who held left-wing democratic socialist beliefs and fell within the scope of philosophical belief protection afforded under the Equality Act 2010 was unlawfully discriminated against and unlawfully harassed.
The employment tribunal held that a manager's use of bad language that included the words "Jesus Christ" and "God" did not harass a Christian employee.
The employment tribunal held that a police worker's "profound belief in the proper and efficient use of public money in the public sector" is not a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act 2010.
This employment tribunal refused to allow the concept of a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act 2010 to be extended to protect the claimant's views that "homosexuality is contrary to God's law and nature" and "no Jewish people were killed by the use of poison gas in concentration camps during the Second World War".
This employment tribunal held that the belief in the importance of public service held by an individual who became the mayor of Liverpool is a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act 2010.
In Bull and another v Hall and another [2013] UKSC 73 SC, the Supreme Court held that Christian hotel owners directly discriminated against a same-sex couple who were civil partners when they refused them a double-bedded room in accordance with their policy of letting such rooms to married couples only.
In DLA Piper's case of the week, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) examined the dividing line between the innocent expression of an employee's religion at work and the inappropriate manifestation of religious beliefs in the workplace that justifies a misconduct charge.
This employment tribunal held that the belief in "democratic socialism" held by a dismissed jobcentre worker who has long been politically active with the Labour Party is a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act 2010.
The Court of Appeal has found that the employment tribunal was correct to reject the indirect religion or belief discrimination claim brought by a Christian care worker who resigned after a dispute with her employer over her refusal to work on Sundays.
The Supreme Court has held that the owners of a bed and breakfast, whose religious beliefs include that sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage are sinful, could not justify their refusal to give civil partners a room with a double bed, in this important discrimination case on the conflict between sexual orientation laws and the right to manifest religious beliefs.