News & Insights

In the case of Miller v University of Bristol [EA-2024-000324-RS] the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) confirmed that an employee’s controversial political views may still qualify as a protected philosophical belief. However, that does not give employees complete freedom to express those beliefs in any way they choose. For HR teams and SME owners, the case is a useful reminder that a clear distinction must be drawn between the belief itself, the way it is expressed and the sanction imposed.

What happened?

Dr David Miller, a Professor of Political Sociology, was summarily dismissed by the University of Bristol following public comments made in February 2021. His comments expressed his belief that political Zionism was inherently racist, imperialistic and colonial and should be opposed. They also included criticism of Jewish students and student organisations.

What did the tribunals say?

The original Employment Tribunal found that Dr Miller’s beliefs met the legal test for protection under the Equality Act 2010. It also found that his expression of those beliefs materially influenced the University’s decision to dismiss him. Although the University had legitimate concerns about protecting students and its reputation, dismissal was disproportionate because a warning or another lesser sanction could have addressed those concerns.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal largely upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision. It agreed that political beliefs can qualify as protected philosophical beliefs, even where they are controversial or offensive to others. It also upheld the findings that the dismissal was directly discriminatory, unfair and wrongful.

However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal did not find that all aspects of Dr Miller’s conduct were protected. His comments specifically directed at students and student societies could properly be treated as misconduct. Because that conduct was blameworthy and materially contributed to his dismissal, the 50% reduction to his unfair dismissal compensation was upheld.

The University succeeded on one limited point. The original Tribunal had found a 30% chance that Dr Miller would have been lawfully dismissed by October 2023 because of later social media posts, but it had not adequately explained the evidential basis for that figure. That issue was sent back to the same Tribunal to reconsider at the remedy stage.

What’s the lesson?

1.     Separate the belief from the way it is expressed

Do not assume that a controversial or unpopular belief falls outside legal protection. Identify precisely what conduct is causing concern and whether it can be separated from the belief itself. Investigation letters and disciplinary allegations should focus on specific words, actions, context and impact rather than simply describing the employee’s viewpoint as unacceptable.

2.     Carry out and document a genuine proportionality assessment

Before imposing a sanction, consider the content, tone, audience and likely impact of the expression, the employee’s role and any power imbalance, reputational or operational risks, and the rights of others. Record why the proposed response is necessary and why a warning, training, guidance or another less intrusive step would not be sufficient.

3.     Keep policies clear and apply them consistently

Conduct, social media, equality and freedom of expression policies should explain the standards expected and the circumstances in which speech may lead to disciplinary action. Decision-makers should also check how comparable cases have been handled. Inconsistent treatment or vague rules can undermine both the fairness of a dismissal and any argument that restricting expression was justified.

For any additional information on this topic or other Employment advice, please contact one of our Employment experts.

 This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.