2 Religion or belief
The CIPD viewpoint for religion and belief (no date) clarifies that a religious or philosophical belief must be all of the following:
- be genuinely held
- be a belief and not just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
- be about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
- has to attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and
- be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
EHRC (2023) explains that ‘in the Equality Act religion or belief can mean any religion, for example an organised religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Buddhism, or a smaller religion like Rastafarianism or Paganism, as long as it has a clear structure and belief system. The Equality Act also covers non-belief or a lack of religion or belief.’
Philosophical belief is a more complex area and one that is often the subject of intense debate.
Exploring discrimination
EHRC (2023) shares a range of examples of religious discrimination, including the following.
| Direct discrimination | A Hindu businessman interviews two women for a job as his personal assistant. One is Hindu and the other is not religious. The Hindu woman is the best candidate at interview but he gives the job to the other woman because he thinks his clients (who are mainly Christian or have no religion or belief) will prefer it. This is direct discrimination because of religion or belief. |
| Indirect discrimination | You are Jewish and you finish early on Fridays in order to observe the Sabbath. Your manager has changed the weekly team meetings from Wednesday afternoons to Friday afternoons and you are therefore often absent. |
| Harassment | A Muslim man visits his local takeaway regularly. Every time he goes in, one of the staff makes comments about him being a terrorist. He finds this offensive and upsetting. |
| Victimisation | A woman at work has been harassed by a supervisor because she wears a hijab. Her co-worker saw this happen and is supporting her harassment claim. The co-worker is threatened with dismissal. This would be victimisation because the co-worker is supporting her colleague’s claim of harassment. |
Morris (2025) explains that to succeed in a claim for unlawful discrimination based on philosophical beliefs, a claimant must satisfy the criteria outlined above but also be able to establish a causal connection between their professed beliefs and the unfair treatment in question. She describes employment tribunals as typically giving ‘the meaning of ‘philosophical beliefs’ a wide interpretation, which can often be a source of much uncertainty as to the extent to which individuals’ beliefs are protected from unfair treatment in the workplace under the Equality Act.’
She provides some examples of protected philosophical beliefs using recent case law, which you might be interested in exploring further:
- Jackson v Lidl 2020 found that stoicism is capable of constituting a protected philosophical belief.
- Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports 2020 found that ethical veganism also qualifies for statutory protection.
Morris also shares some examples of claims that did not succeed:
- Gray v Mulberry 2019 dismissed a claim for discrimination on the grounds of a philosophical belief in the sanctity of copyright law.
- Lackey v London Borough of Haringey 2023 ruled that an individual’s personal opinion on council policies did not constitute a philosophical belief.
- Harvey v AB Ltd 2024 dismissed a claim where the belief directly promoted discriminatory practices.
Enhancing your awareness
Belief
There have been a number of high profile cases relating to philosophical belief in recent years, from Forstater v CGD Europe in 2021 which held that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act, to Miller vs University of Bristol in 2024 which held that anti-zionist beliefs are also protected.
Both these cases highlight the challenge for employers when ‘balancing conflicting protected characteristics and protecting both those affected by certain beliefs and those holding those beliefs from discrimination and harassment’ (DLA Piper, 2024).
Activity 2 A high profile case
For a detailed overview of the Higgs v Farmor’s School case, read this article by Apps & Martin-Barton (2025), which was published on the Ashfords law firm website. Click here for a link to the article.
Make a note of anything you find useful in the box below.
Comment
This has been a very high profile case, continuing beyond the initial ruling, and much of the commentary in the press and on social media has been highly emotive. This article is written by legal professionals and provides a useful perspective for employers.
There is a very real possibility of employees with genuinely held beliefs coming into conflict with colleagues holding opposing views, and potential consequences in the workplace. One useful step towards educating the workforce could be the development of a Dignity at Work policy.
A Dignity at Work policy aims to support a culture in which colleagues respect each other and value individual differences.
When creating a Dignity at Work policy, Rogers (2019) recommends taking the following steps:
- think about the type of work environment you want to create and set out clear objectives for how you expect your staff to get there
- cover all bases in terms of who is involved, whose responsibility it is to enforce and why it’s important
- set it out clearly, explaining each point and defining what is meant by each term
- look at the legislation and literature from governing bodies surrounding dignity at work, including Acts and reports, and incorporate their principles according to your ethos.
The article goes on to include a template to help you create your own policy. Find the link in References.
In the next section you’ll explore some of the issues for transgender employees and their employers.