There have been a few employment tribunal decisions which have considered the position of philosophical beliefs, and what beliefs are protected. The Equality Act 2010 protects the rights of employees to practise their religion without fear of discrimination. However, certain employees hold philosophical rather than religious beliefs and these may be protected by law.

In 2009, an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision defined the criteria of a philosophical belief. It must:

• be genuinely held
• be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint, based on the present state of information available
• be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

Humanism, pacifism and atheism are all examples of widespread philosophical beliefs that are frequently encountered in the workplace and as such it is the employer's duty to ensure employees are not discriminated against because of their religion or belief.

Chris McEleny

This week an employment tribunal ruled that the Equality Act 2010 protects an employee's belief in Scottish independence. At the preliminary hearing of Chris McEleny's, an SNP councillor, case against his former employer, the Ministry of Defence the employment judge agreed that his support for independence qualifies as a philosophical belief and as such would be classed as a protected characteristic.

The judgement said: "The claimant was clear in his evidence that he does not believe in Scottish independence because it will necessarily lead to improved economic and social conditions for people living in Scotland. It is a fundamental belief in the right of Scotland to national sovereignty."

Mr McEleny claimed he was unfairly targeted because of his views and the case will now proceed to a full hearing to determine whether he was discriminated against because of this belief.

Ms Gray

On the other hand, a recent EAT case determined that an employer did not discriminate when it dismissed an employee who refused to sign a copyright agreement because she held a "philosophical belief" that she should own the rights to her work.

The facts of this matter are that when she started work at Mulberry, Ms Gray was asked to sign a standard contract clause which specified that the company would own the rights to any work she completed while employed by them. She refused on the basis that such a clause would impact on any work she did in her own time as a writer and filmmaker. Mulberry duly amended the clause to state that only work carried out in relation to its business would be covered. She still refused to sign and eight months after starting work she was dismissed.

Ms Gray lodged a tribunal claim for discrimination (both direct and indirect) on grounds of belief, i.e. her belief in the sanctity of copyright and that people should own and profit from their own work. She however conceded that her beliefs had been held privately and she had not referred to them during her discussions with Mulberry about the clause.

A tribunal dismissed Ms Gray's claim holding that Mulberry's actions were a proportionate means of safeguarding its intellectual property and that her "belief" was ineligible for protection. She appealed.

Dismissing her appeal, the EAT held that her belief lacked sufficient conviction to qualify as a protected belief under the Equality Act.

These are two interesting decisions showing how varied the case law can be in this area, and how likely they are to turn on their facts.