University of Bristol v Dr David Miller [2026] EAT 84

In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") considered whether an anti-Zionist belief qualified as a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 ("EqA") and whether dismissal on account of its manifestation constituted direct discrimination.

The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Professor of Political Sociology from September 2018 until his dismissal in October 2021. He believed that political Zionism (defined as the ideology that a state for Jewish people ought to be established and maintained in the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine) is inherently racist, imperialistic and colonial, and should be opposed. In February 2021, the Claimant made a series of public statements expressing those beliefs, which drew widespread criticism and numerous complaints. Following investigation and a disciplinary hearing, the Respondent dismissed the Claimant for gross misconduct, principally on the basis that he had directed critical and inflammatory comments at Jewish students and student groups in connection with the expression of his anti-Zionist views.

The Employment Tribunal ("ET") decided that the Claimant’s anti-Zionist beliefs were protected and his dismissal, because of comments expressing that belief, was unlawful direct discrimination, and an unfair and wrongful dismissal. The ET reduced the basic and compensatory awards for unfair dismissal by 50% for contributory fault, and assessed there was a 30% chance that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed by October 2023 in any event, by reason of further social media posts he made in August 2023.

The Respondent appealed on nine grounds. The EAT upheld the ET’s findings and dismissed all grounds of appeal save one.

The EAT found that two material factors had cumulatively led to the dismissal: the Claimant's expression of his protected anti-Zionist beliefs, and his comments about students and student groups. Whilst those elements were juxtaposed in the Claimant’s February 2021 statements, they were regarded as separate and distinct aspects of a composite reason for dismissal. The EAT upheld the finding that the manifestation of the Claimant's protected beliefs was "writ large" in the February 2021 statements and had a material impact on the decision-maker's reasons for deciding to dismiss him.

The EAT also concluded that a material part of the Respondent's composite reason for dismissal was the non-objectionable expression of protected beliefs, meaning the dismissal could not be justified under the Higgs framework (discussed here). In the alternative, it upheld the ET's finding that proceeding directly to dismissal, rather than imposing a warning, was a disproportionate response to the Claimant’s conduct.

The sole appeal ground on which the Respondent succeeded was in relation to the ET's assessment that there was a 30% chance that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed by October 2023 as a result of his August 2023 posts. The EAT found that this conclusion lacked an adequate evidential basis and returned the issue to the original ET for re-determination at the remedy hearing.

There are several key practical implications for employers. First, this case confirms that the threshold for establishing a philosophical belief that is protected under the EqA is lower than many employers may assume. Secondly, it is a reminder to act proportionately. In this case, the EAT agreed that dismissal was a disproportionate response in the circumstances. Thirdly, where an employee's speech is a mixture of protected belief manifestation and separable conduct, employers should carefully dissect those elements from the outset, including during internal disciplinary proceedings. Taking action in respect of content that is properly separable from the protected belief may avoid the difficulties highlighted in this case and in Higgs, but separating conduct that is the manifestation of a protected belief from that which is not is unlikely to be straightforward.

Lightbulb © 2026

Privacy Policy