The limits of “it’s my belief” at work

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has clarified the limits of protection for philosophical beliefs in the workplace, confirming that there must be a clear and direct link between a protected belief and the conduct said to express it.

The decision will be of interest to employers when managing contentious workplace discussions, particularly around social or political issues. It reinforces that while beliefs may be protected under the Equality Act 2010, the manner in which those beliefs are expressed can still justify disciplinary action.

Read on to find out about the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Garrett (EAT) case where the Equality Act 2010 was used.

Facts of the case

The claimant was an ambulance crew member who was subject to disciplinary action following two incidents.

The first involved a heated exchange with a black colleague in which he allegedly used the term “roadman”. The second arose during a workplace discussion shortly after the death of George Floyd, where the claimant stated that he did not believe systemic racism exists. It was alleged that he also made comments linking life outcomes to individual actions and suggesting that black people should not “hide behind their race”, although aspects of this were disputed.

Following a disciplinary process, the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust) concluded that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct. He received a final written warning and was required to complete training, including a reflective exercise on systemic racism.

The claimant brought claims for discrimination, arguing that he had been treated unfavourably because of his philosophical belief that all people should be treated equally regardless of race.

Tribunal decision

The Employment Tribunal upheld the claim in part. It accepted that the claimant’s belief in equal treatment satisfied the criteria for protection under the Equality Act 2010.

Crucially, the tribunal found that his rejection of systemic racism was a manifestation of that belief, reflecting his broader conviction that individuals should be treated equally regardless of race. On that basis, it concluded that aspects of the disciplinary process were discriminatory.

The EAT decision

The EAT allowed the Trust’s appeal and overturned the tribunal’s decision in its entirety. 

The central issue was whether the claimant’s denial of systemic racism could properly be characterised as a manifestation of his protected belief in equal treatment. The EAT held that it could not. It drew a distinction between a belief about how people should behave (equality of treatment) and a view about how society operates (whether systemic racism exists). A person may hold a belief in equality regardless of their position on systemic racism, and therefore the necessary close and direct connection between the belief and the manifestation of it was missing. 

The EAT also found that the tribunal had erred in its understanding of systemic racism, which led it to incorrectly assume that rejecting its existence must form part of an equality-based belief. This flawed reasoning undermined the tribunal’s conclusion on discrimination. 

Importantly, the EAT confirmed that the Trust had not disciplined the claimant simply for holding a belief. Rather, the disciplinary action was based on the manner in which he expressed himself, including findings that his behaviour was offensive and confrontational in the workplace. Employers are entitled to address such behaviour. 

The EAT also held that it was legitimate for the Trust to place limited weight on materials relied upon by the claimant, such as online articles it considered to lack academic rigour, as part of a non-discriminatory decision-making process. 

The claimant’s race discrimination claim was also dismissed, as there was no evidence that he would have been treated more favourably had he been of a different race. 

The Birketts view

This decision provides helpful clarification on the boundary between protected beliefs and unprotected conduct. Not everything said in connection with a belief will attract legal protection; there must be a sufficiently close and direct link between the belief and the conduct in question.

Employers should distinguish carefully between protected beliefs and potentially disciplinable conduct, ensuring that any response is clearly grounded in the latter. While the Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from discrimination because of their beliefs, it does not prevent employers from taking proportionate action where the manner of expression undermines dignity at work or damages working relationships.

This sits within an increasingly complex and, at times, polarised workplace environment, where we are seeing strongly held views more frequently expressed and, equally, more likely to be challenged. Employers are therefore more frequently required to balance competing rights and perspectives in real time.

The practical challenge is in identifying the legal distinction and applying it consistently in practice. Errors by employers in this area can lead to more employee relations issues, reputational risk and potential litigation. A clear, well‑documented decision-making process by the employer – demonstrating that action is directed at an individual’s conduct, not their belief – will be critical in limiting that risk.