Cases2304056/2018

Claimant v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

29 October 2025Before Employment Judge C HydeLondon South

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(religion)failed

The tribunal found that the claimant's belief in English nationalism included anti-Islamic views expressed in numerous public social media posts 2015-2017, which were offensive, prejudiced and disparaging. These views did not satisfy the fifth Grainger criterion (worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity, not conflicting with fundamental rights of others). His disdainful and prejudiced focus on Islam exclusively meant the belief was not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

Facts

The claimant, an agency worker employed as Interim Category Manager from May 2018, had his placement terminated on 24 July 2018. He claimed this was discrimination related to his belief in English nationalism. He had a 2016 conviction for electoral fraud and a lengthy history of public social media posts (2008-2017) expressing anti-Islamic views, disdain for Muslim practices, and opposition to immigration. The respondent claimed termination was due to failure to disclose the spent conviction and providing misleading information.

Decision

The tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether English nationalism was a protected philosophical belief. While English nationalism itself was capable of protection and met the first four Grainger criteria, the claimant's version included anti-Islamic views that were offensive, prejudiced and focused exclusively on Islam. These failed the fifth Grainger criterion as they were not worthy of respect in a democratic society. The discrimination claim was therefore dismissed.

Practical note

A political belief such as nationalism may be capable of protection under the Equality Act 2010, but if it is inextricably linked with offensive, prejudiced views targeting a specific religion that conflict with the fundamental rights of others, it will fail the fifth Grainger criterion and not be a protected characteristic.

Legal authorities cited

Miller v College of Policing [2020] EWHC 225R (Williamson) v Secretary of State [2005] 2 AC 246Henderson v The General Municipal and Boilermakers Union [2017] IRLR 34Harron v Chief Constable of Dorset Police [2016] IRLR 481Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439Handyside v United Kingdom (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737R v Shayler [2003] 1 AC 247Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360Gray v Mulberry Company (Design) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1720Redfearn v United Kingdom [2013] IRLR 51 (ECtHR)

Statutes

European Convention on Human Rights Article 2Equality Act 2010 s.10Equality Act 2010 s.4Human Rights Act 1998European Convention on Human Rights Article 10European Convention on Human Rights Article 9European Convention on Human Rights Article 5

Case details

Case number
2304056/2018
Decision date
29 October 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Interim Category Manager (temporary worker)
Service
3 months

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister