Claimant v University of Bristol
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. The decision to dismiss the claimant on 1 October 2021 was predicated on a finding that his expression of these beliefs was inherently objectionable and constituted misconduct, which amounted to direct discrimination because the respondent did not regard other protected philosophical beliefs as inherently objectionable. The tribunal accepted that the respondent applied a belief-specific criterion to the claimant.
The tribunal determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim for harassment relating to the respondent's recommendation on 12 June 2020 that a complaint be investigated under the misconduct procedure (Ordinance 28). The claim was out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time under s123 Equality Act 2010. Other harassment claims also failed on their merits.
The tribunal found that the dismissal was substantively unfair under s98 ERA 1996. Although the respondent had a potentially fair reason (conduct), the decision to dismiss was not within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal concluded that dismissal was disproportionate in the circumstances and that a warning would have been more appropriate. The tribunal also found that the dismissal constituted an unlawful interference with the claimant's rights under Articles 9 and 10 ECHR and with the principle of academic freedom.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not commit a repudiatory breach of contract. The relationship between the claimant and the University was not so damaged that trust and confidence was undermined to the extent that the employer should no longer be required to retain the claimant in employment. Dismissal was disproportionate and inconsistent with the treatment of comparators. Therefore the respondent was in breach of its obligation to provide notice.
The claim for indirect discrimination was withdrawn by the claimant on the first day of the substantive hearing.
Facts
Dr Miller, a Professor of Political Sociology employed by the University of Bristol from September 2018 to October 2021, held anti-Zionist beliefs which he expressed publicly through lectures, media comments and social media. In February 2021 he made public comments criticising certain student groups and individuals in strong terms following an online event. A complaint was made and he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the University's Ordinance 28 misconduct procedure. He was dismissed for gross misconduct on 1 October 2021, with the dismissal upheld on appeal on 23 February 2022. The University considered his comments to be abusive, vitriolic and likely to damage working relationships and the University's reputation.
Decision
The tribunal held that Dr Miller's anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 applying the Grainger criteria. His dismissal amounted to direct discrimination because the University applied a belief-specific criterion, treating his manifestation of those beliefs as inherently objectionable in circumstances where other protected beliefs would not be so treated. The dismissal was also unfair under s98 ERA 1996 as it was not a proportionate response and was outside the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also found wrongful dismissal as there was no repudiatory breach. However, both the basic and compensatory awards for unfair dismissal were reduced by 50% for contributory fault, and a 30% Polkey reduction applied from two months after August 2023 based on further social media comments.
Practical note
An employer cannot lawfully dismiss an employee for expressing protected philosophical beliefs, even controversial ones, unless the manner of manifestation is objectively unreasonable or extreme; applying a belief-specific criterion that treats one protected belief as inherently objectionable amounts to direct discrimination.
Adjustments
The tribunal concluded there is a 30% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed two months after comments he made on social media in August 2023. The tribunal found these August 2023 tweets were of a different order to the February 2021 comments and were highly likely to have led to further concern both within and outside the University, potentially resulting in dismissal within two months.
The tribunal found that the claimant's conduct in publicly criticising students and university student societies contributed to and played a material part in his dismissal. His conduct was culpable and blameworthy. The tribunal concluded that although dismissal was disproportionate, a disciplinary warning would have been both fair and proportionate. Taking into account the level of culpability and the disproportionate nature of dismissal, the tribunal reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 50%.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1400780/2022
- Decision date
- 5 February 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 11
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Professor of Political Sociology
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister