Claimant v Lloyds Bank Plc
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal found the Claimants did not hold the protected anti-Zionist beliefs at the relevant time and that the Respondent's treatment was due to the manner of manifestation/expression of beliefs being inappropriate in the workplace, not the beliefs themselves.
Alternative claim based on philosophical beliefs also failed as the Tribunal found the beliefs were not worthy of respect in a democratic society under the Grainger test due to antisemitic manifestations.
Claimants failed to prove that Muslims were put at a particular disadvantage by the PCP of subjecting inappropriate, offensive or potentially offensive speech to disciplinary action. No statistical or other evidence was adduced to establish group disadvantage.
Facts
Two Muslim employees of Lloyds Bank posted/emailed messages internally about the Israel/Palestine conflict in May 2021. The Respondent gave them final written warnings for breach of conduct rules, finding the posts offensive and inappropriate for the workplace. The warnings were reported to the FCA. Both Claimants appealed unsuccessfully. They brought claims of direct and indirect religious/philosophical belief discrimination.
Decision
The Tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the Claimants did not hold protected anti-Zionist philosophical beliefs at the relevant time under the Grainger test because such beliefs as manifested were not worthy of respect in a democratic society. The Tribunal found the Respondent's actions were due to the manner of manifestation being inappropriate for the workplace, not the beliefs themselves. The indirect discrimination claim failed for lack of evidence of group disadvantage.
Practical note
Philosophical beliefs opposing Zionism may fail the 'worthy of respect' limb of Grainger if manifested in ways that include antisemitic tropes or are insensitive to Jewish history, even if the holder does not intend antisemitism; employers can legitimately restrict polarising political discourse in the workplace to maintain an inclusive environment, though disciplinary sanctions must be proportionate.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2202954/2022
- Decision date
- 10 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 15
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Lloyds Bank Plc
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Customer Service Adviser (Ms Sohail); Litigation and Fair Assessment Advisor (Ms Khalid)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister