Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EAT 141

Facts

The Claimant contended that the Respondent had terminated his position due to his support of English nationalism. The employment tribunal first examined whether his belief qualified as a "protected belief" under the 2010 Equality Act.

The tribunal determined that while the Equality Act 2010 would have protected many components of the claimant's English nationalism ideas, his beliefs also included anti-Islamic sentiments. He felt that Muslims should be forcibly removed from the United Kingdom and that neither Islam nor Muslims themselves had any place in British culture. The tribunal determined that his belief did not meet the fifth standard established in Grainger v. Nicholson, which states that a belief must be respectable in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity, and not in opposition to another person's fundamental rights.

The Claimant appealed to the EAT because his belief was not protected. 

Held

The Employment Appeal Tribunal sided with the tribunal. UK law has to be interpreted, to the greatest extent feasible, in line with the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). According to Article 17 of the Convention, a person cannot claim the Convention's protection if doing so would allow them to commit any act "aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms" enshrined in it.

The EAT stated that the removal of Muslims from the United Kingdom would probably result in the elimination of their Convention rights. The Claimant's language fell into the grave category of "hate speech". The EAT determined that, while the threshold for protection under the Convention, and hence under the Equality Act 2010, is low, the tribunal did not err in concluding that the Claimant's beliefs did not meet that threshold.

Comment

According to the Equality Act 2010, the respondent's belief in English nationalism does not qualify as a protected belief.