Thank you for reading HR compliance kit | September

^{Legislation Book}^|^{Case law}^|^{HR Supplies}

Protected beliefs in the workplace

Dr Miller v University of Bristol

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in University of Bristol v Dr David Miller [2026] EAT 84 highlights the challenges employers can face when workplace conduct intersects with strongly held beliefs.

While the case centred on anti-Zionist beliefs, the wider lesson is that employers must distinguish carefully between an employee's protected belief and the way that belief is expressed.

Background

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has largely upheld an Employment Tribunal decision in favour of Professor David Miller, a former political sociology lecturer at the University of Bristol.

Professor Miller was dismissed in October 2021 after a disciplinary process concluded that he did not meet the University's standards of behaviour. The disciplinary action followed a number of public statements and comments he made regarding Zionism, Israel, Jewish student groups and related political issues.

Professor Miller subsequently brought claims for:

Unfair dismissal;
Wrongful dismissal/breach of contract; and
Discrimination and victimisation because of his philosophical belief (anti-Zionism).

Tribunal findings

In 2024, the Employment Tribunal found that:

Professor Miller's anti-Zionist beliefs amounted to a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.
The University discriminated against him because of those protected beliefs.
His dismissal was unfair.
He had also been wrongfully dismissed.

However, the Tribunal found that some of Professor Miller's conduct contributed to his dismissal.

It determined that compensation should be reduced by 50% on the basis of contributory fault, particularly in relation to comments made about Jewish students and student groups.

^{Legislation Book}^|^{Case law}^|^{HR Supplies}

The University's appeal

The University appealed, arguing that:

Anti-Zionist beliefs were political beliefs and therefore should not attract protection under the Equality Act 2010.
The Tribunal had been wrong to uphold the unfair dismissal claim.
Any compensation should have been reduced by 100% due to Professor Miller's conduct.

EAT decision

The EAT dismissed the majority of the University's appeal and upheld the key findings of the Tribunal.

In particular, the EAT confirmed that:

A belief is not excluded from protection merely because it relates to a political or socially contentious issue.
Anti-Zionist beliefs are capable of amounting to a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act.
Protection extends to beliefs that many individuals may find controversial, unpopular or offensive, provided the legal threshold for protection is met.

The EAT also rejected Professor Miller's own appeal against certain findings, including:

The Tribunal's conclusion that particular disciplinary findings were not direct discrimination.
The reduction of compensation for contributory fault.

Compensation remains to be determined.

^{Legislation Book}^|^{Case law}^|^{HR Supplies}

Why this matters for employers

This decision is another reminder that employers must distinguish carefully between:

1. An employee's belief

Protected beliefs under the Equality Act can include beliefs that are:

Political;
Contentious;
Offensive to some people; or
Unpopular within the workplace.

Employers should avoid taking action simply because they disagree with an employee's beliefs or because complaints are received about the beliefs themselves.

2. The manner in which those beliefs are expressed

Employers remain entitled to address:

Harassment;
Bullying;
Discriminatory conduct;
Conduct that breaches workplace policies; and
Behaviour that impacts workplace relationships or creates risk to others.

The key question is whether action is being taken because of the belief itself, or because of the way the employee has expressed or acted upon that belief.

^{Legislation Book}^|^{Case law}^|^{HR Supplies}

Key employer takeaways

1. Focus on conduct, not belief

When investigating complaints, employers should carefully identify whether concerns relate to:

The employee's underlying protected belief; or
Specific conduct arising from the expression of that belief.

Disciplinary outcomes should be based on conduct and objective policy breaches wherever possible.

2. Ensure investigation reports are evidence-based

Decision-makers should clearly document:

The allegations;

The evidence considered;
The workplace impact of the conduct; and
Why any disciplinary action is justified.

This will assist in defending subsequent discrimination and unfair dismissal claims.

3. Review social media and conduct policies

Policies should:

Protect freedom of expression;
Set behavioural expectations;
Prohibit harassment and discriminatory conduct; and
Explain when workplace disciplinary action may arise from public statements.

4. Train managers on protected beliefs

Managers should understand that protected philosophical beliefs can extend beyond traditional religious beliefs and may include political or ideological views.

Failure to recognise this can create significant discrimination risks.

5. Consider less severe sanctions before dismissal

Where concerns arise from speech or expression of belief, employers should be able to demonstrate that they considered:

Informal resolution;
Guidance or training;
Warnings; and alternative sanctions,

before deciding that dismissal is justified.

^{Legislation Book}^|^{Case law}^|^{HR Supplies}

6. Balance equality rights with freedom of expression

This case highlights the increasing tension between:

Freedom of expression;
Academic freedom;
Equality and diversity obligations; and
Protection from harassment.

Employers should ensure that any restriction on expression can be objectively justified and is proportionate.

Practical risk point

For employers, the most significant lesson from this case is that dismissing an employee because of a protected belief, even one that is perceived as highly controversial, is likely to create substantial litigation risk.

Any disciplinary process should therefore be framed around demonstrable misconduct, policy breaches and workplace impact, rather than disagreement with the employee's views themselves.

Bottom line

The case reinforces that controversial political or ideological beliefs may still attract Equality Act protection.

Employers should therefore concentrate on regulating conduct and behaviour, not the belief itself and ensure disciplinary decisions are supported by clear evidence and a proportionate rationale.

Looking for more case law insights?

Take a look at last month's case highlight, which examined the whistleblowing case, Capeling v TFX Group Ltd, and the risks employers should be aware of.

READ NOW