Dealing with protected beliefs: a reminder that proportionality is key

In a decision that highlights the fine line employers must navigate when dealing with protected beliefs, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has largely dismissed the University of Bristol’s appeal in University of Bristol v Miller [2026] EAT 84, upholding the finding that an employee dismissal amounted to unlawful direct belief discrimination.

Put simply, an employer cannot discipline an employee simply because it disagrees with their protected belief. But where there is objectionable conduct in the way that a belief is manifested, disciplinary action may be possible, provided the response is proportionate to the conduct and the legitimate aim being pursued.

Background

Dr David Miller, a professor of political sociology at the University of Bristol, was dismissed for gross misconduct following public comments expressing his belief that political Zionism is “inherently racist, imperialist and colonial” and ought to be opposed.

Dr Miller brought claims including direct belief discrimination and unfair dismissal. 

The Employment Tribunal found that his anti-Zionist belief, as defined in the proceedings, amounted to a protected belief under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010, and that his comments were a manifestation of that belief which had materially influenced the decision to dismiss him. The Tribunal concluded that dismissal was a disproportionate response and therefore amounted to unlawful direct discrimination and unfair dismissal.

The university appealed to the EAT.

The EAT’s decision

The EAT dismissed the university’s appeal on the key issues, upholding the Tribunal’s conclusion that Dr Miller’s belief was capable of protection under the Equality Act 2010.

Importantly, the EAT rejected the argument that the political nature of Dr Miller’s belief placed it outside the scope of protection. A political belief, including one concerning a particular social or political issue, can qualify for protection if it meets the Grainger criteria. The fact that a belief is controversial or attracts criticism does not, in itself, prevent it from being protected.

The EAT also upheld the finding that Dr Miller’s dismissal was materially influenced by his manifestation of his protected belief and that, in the circumstances, dismissal was a disproportionate response and therefore amounted to unlawful direct discrimination.

While the university was pursuing legitimate aims, including protecting its reputation and the rights of others, the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that those aims could have been achieved by a lesser sanction, including a warning and clearer expectations about public comments concerning students and student societies.

The EAT did allow one limited ground of appeal concerning the Tribunal’s assessment of there being a 30% chance that Dr Miller would have been fairly dismissed in any event following later social media comments made in August 2023. The EAT found that the Tribunal had not adequately explained the basis for that conclusion, and the issue has therefore been remitted to the Tribunal for further consideration. That remittance does not impact on liability in the case.

Proportionality remains central

The significance of the decision is that even where an employer has a legitimate reason for taking action in response to the manifestation of a protected belief, the response must be proportionate to the conduct and the legitimate aim being pursued.

Employers cannot simply focus on the fact that an employee’s comments have caused offence, concern or complaints. They must consider whether the action proposed goes further than necessary to address the concern.

What does this mean for employers?

The practical message from Miller is to pause before deciding on any sanction where disciplinary action relates to the manifestation of a protected belief. Employers should identify the conduct causing concern, establish why action is being taken, and consider whether a lesser sanction could achieve the same outcome. That assessment should be clearly documented, particularly where dismissal is being considered.

If a Tribunal concludes that a lesser sanction would have been sufficient, an employer risks a likely finding that its actions were discriminatory. It is, therefore, critical to get the balance right.

The decision is a further reminder that belief-related issues in the workplace, particularly those involving competing protected beliefs, are increasingly complex and high-risk for employers. With a growing number of Employment Tribunal claims arising in this area, employers are strongly advised to seek early advice to ensure that decisions involving the expression and manifestation of belief are approached carefully, consistently and with a clear understanding of the legal risks.

Our employment team have significant experience advising employers on managing belief-related issues in the workplace, do not hesitate to contact our team if you would like to discuss your circumstances. 

Related News, Insights & Events