The case Grainger plc v Nicholson attracted a great deal of media interest when the EAT held that an individual’s belief in climate change was capable of being a 'belief'.

Mr Nicholson was made redundant in June 2008 and he brought a number of claims including a claim for discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. He held strong views about climate change and a pre-hearing review was held to determine whether his beliefs were protected under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Mr Nicholson stated his beliefs were not just an opinion but a philosophical belief which affected "how I live my life including my choice of home, how I travel, what I buy, what I eat and drink". The Employment Tribunal held those beliefs gave rise to a 'moral order' similar to most religions and was a 'philosophical belief' for the purposes of the Regulations. Grainger appealed unsuccessfully to the EAT which held in November 2009 that an individual’s belief in climate change was capable of being a 'belief' and it gave guidance as to what amounts to a belief:

• The belief must be genuinely held
• It must be a belief and not just an opinion or viewpoint
• It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life
• It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion or importance
• It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

The matter was referred back to the Employment Tribunal for the substantive hearing. Although the EAT held Mr Nicholson’s beliefs were capable of being a belief for the purposes of the Regulations he will need to give evidence at the hearing about his belief and be cross-examined about the extent of it. Mr Nicholson will then have to show that he suffered discrimination on the basis of his belief.

The issue of what constitutes belief was also considered in the recent high profile case Power v Greater Manchester Police. The Employment Tribunal held that Mr Power’s faith in psychic/spiritual beliefs came within the scope of the Regulations. However, at the subsequent merits hearing, Mr Power’s claim was dismissed.

Employment newsletter - Winter 2009