In a landmark decision, the Employment Tribunal decided fervent anti-fox hunting campaigner Joe Hashman was protected from discrimination because of his beliefs in animal welfare.

Mr Hashman was employed by a garden centre. He was a keen animal rights campaigner and had given evidence in support of prosecutions for illegal hunting. When his employers discovered his fervent anti-hunting views he was dismissed. He argued that his dismissal was because of his belief in animal rights and that the dismissal was discriminatory.

The Equality Act 2010 protects employees from being discriminated against because of their religion or belief. In order to qualify for protection as a belief the claimant must hold a religious or philosophical belief (section 10 Equality Act 2010). There have been previous cases which have addressed the question of what constitutes a philosophical belief.

The authority on this is the case of Grainger Plc v Nicolson [2010] IRLR 4 in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that a fundamental belief in the impact of climate change was protected and set out guidelines for future cases. Grainger establishes that the employee must genuinely hold the belief in question. It must be a belief and not just an opinion based on the present state of information available. The belief must be about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour and it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance and it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental right of others.

Applying these guidelines it is unlikely that, for example, a belief in the Star Wars Jedi way of life would be protected as it does not concern a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and would most likely lack the required level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

In the case of Mr Hashman, he successfully argued that his fervent objection to fox hunting and his fundamental belief in the sanctity of animal life amounted to philosophical beliefs capable of protection. The Tribunal went on to find that he was dismissed because of those beliefs and therefore declared that his dismissal was unfair and discriminatory. This is the first time that a fervent objection to fox hunting has been protected as a philosophical belief.

In a further recent case of Lisk v Shield Guardian Co Ltd (unreported), Mr Lisk, an ex serviceman, objected when he was asked by his employer, Shield Guardian, to remove his poppy at work and he submitted claims for direct discrimination and harassment on the protected ground of philosophical belief. A pre-hearing review was listed to determine whether the ‘poppy incident’ claim should proceed.

Mr Lisk’s argument was that ‘we should pay our respects to those who have given our lives for us by wearing a poppy from All Souls’ Day on 2 November to Remembrance Sunday’. Applying Grainger the tribunal judge had no doubt that Mr Lisk presented as a serious minded individual and that he believed he was entitled to wear a poppy and took the wearing of that emblem very seriously. However, he took note of the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s comments in Grainger that ‘I do not doubt at all that there must be some limit placed upon the definition of philosophical belief for the purposes of the [then] regulations’ when setting out their guidelines.

The tribunal concluded that the belief underpinning the wearing of the poppy could not be described as a philosophical belief because it lacked the characteristics of cogency, cohesion and importance that were required in Grainger. It could not fairly be described as being a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.

There are an increasing number of cases where an issue before the Tribunal is whether a belief is capable of protection as a philosophical belief. For legal advisers the starting point will be a careful reading of the Grainger decision and a need to apply the guidance to the particular facts. Employers should also be especially careful not to discriminate against staff just because they hold different beliefs to the employer. When the length of service requirement for bringing an unfair dismissal claim is increased from one year to two years in April 2012 there may be a further increase in these types of claims as an aggrieved member of staff who has been dismissed and who has under two years service will be unable to pursue an unfair dismissal claim and will then look to discrimination laws for some remedy.

Guy Hollebon is head of Employment Law at Bevans Solicitors