I admit I had to laugh and wondered whether it was an April Fool’s joke come early.  I’m referring to the story in The Sun a few days ago about Chris Jarvis, the hoodie, who was refused entry to Southend Job Centre for refusing to take his hood down.  He complained.  Why?  Because he claimed that his religious beliefs had been infringed, on account of him being a member of the International Church of Jediism – i.e he believed he was a Jedi Knight.  The job centre subsequently apologised for offending him.  He is quoted as saying “Muslims can walk around in whatever religious gear they like, so why can’t I?” ignoring the obvious fact that Islam is one of the world’s great religions dating back to the 600s, as opposed to a science fiction film by George Lucas in 1977.  The clue, Chris, might be in the word “fiction”.   I would have had more sympathy with him had he argued about the increasing tendency of organisations to cite “security” with glib abandon where there is little risk posed.

Anyway, I digress.  What has this to do with employment law?  The answer lies in the Employment Equality (Religion and Philosophical Belief) Regulations 2006, which don’t apply to service provision of this sort, but do in the workplace. Should employers be getting nervous about these type of cases? Those regulations prohibit less favourable treatment or harassment to an employee or worker on the basis of their religion or belief.  The case of Grainger v Nicholson, decided last year that a belief in global warming could amount to a philosophical belief for the purpose of those regulations, meaning that (in that case) Mr Nicholson was able to claim that his selection for redundancy was a manifestation of discrimination. The court in Grainger set out a five part test for deciding what should constitute a “philosophical belief”;

1. The belief must be genuinely held

2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint

3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour

4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance

5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

Could an employee claim that he had been discriminated against on the basis that his rights as a Jedi had been infringed?  Yes, but the better question is would the claim be successful?  Would an Employment Tribunal hold that Jediism was a religion deserving of protection under the Regs? I doubt it: the bar for what qualifies is set high, as can be seen from the above five points.  The third and fourth criteria probably end  Jediism’s pretensions to recognition.  Even in the unlikely event that a Tribunal did decide that Jediism did qualify, the employee still has to show that the reason for their treatment was because of their adherence to that religion and not for some unconnected reason. But, if the religion or belief claimed was more orthodox – say a refusal to undergo conventional medical treatment because of a belief in holistic therapies – that could be a very interesting situation and one quite likely to attratc protection under the Regs, in my view.

One story which was an April Fool’s was posted by Personnel Today last week. Apparently a last minute amendment to the Equality Bill bans wedding rings from the workplace to avoid offending divorcees.  Good story.  Has anyone else seen any good employment law April Fool jokes?

Related posts:

1. Climate change can be a philosophical belief
2. Climate change – the new religion?
3. Case Round Up Friday 6th November 2009

Should employers be scared of Jedism? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 06/04/2010.

The case of Grainger PLC v Nicholson UKEAT/0219/09/ZT gained lots of media coverage, including the front page of today’s The Independent (“Green beliefs win legal protection”).  I covered the case when it was before the Employment Tribunal and Mr Nicholson initially won.  The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has rejected the company’s appeal and held that Mr Nicholson’s belief in climate change is capable of qualifying as a philosophical belief within the meaning of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. These regulations protect workers with religious or philosophical beliefs from being discriminated against because of their religion or belief.  This was a preliminary hearing on whether belief in climate change could qualify within the meaning of those Regulations.  Mr Nicholson still needs to return to the ET for the case on its facts to be decided.  That will include cross-examination of his beliefs to establish to what extent they govern his life.

It is predicted that this decision will lead to employees being able to claim that they have been discriminated against on the ground of any spurious or loony belief that they might have or pretend to hold.  Undoubtedly employers are going to face some interesting assertions of belief over time.  To assist in considering what factors should be taken into account when considering the nature of the asserted belief, the EAT set out some guidelines for deciding whether a “philosophical belief” should qualify;

1. The belief must be genuinely held
2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on current information
3. It must be a belief as to a weight and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others   

The judgment notes that political beliefs could qualify for protection and, given the furore over Nick Griffin’s recent appearance on BBC’s Question Time and subsequent media concern that the BNP is on the rise, it is interesting to consider whether a member of the BNP  who is dismissed from his/her job because of support for the BNP could qualify under these Regulations for protection.  This was raised in Grainger and the Court pointed to (5) above as the limitation which should prevent “racist or homophobic political philosophy” from gaining protection.  On the face of it, therefore, the hypothetical BNP member would not be able to claim under these Regulations.  This is, of course, a fairly new area of law and that particular issue has not yet been tested.   

Please contact me with any comments or details of any other cases that take this point further, or if you simply need advice on your own position.  I can be contacted on 0207 464 8433 or via email at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk

Related posts:

1. Climate change – the new religion?
2. Should employers be scared of Jedism?
3. What is a reasonable belief?

Climate change can be a philosophical belief originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 04/11/2009.