Pro-Brexit-Ansichten sind nicht vor Diskriminierung am Arbeitsplatz geschützt, Gerichtsregeln

>Dismissing Fairbanks’ claim, Jumble said: “There has to be a distinction between a philosophical belief and a strongly held opinion. If, for example, ‘wanting to leave the EU’ was held to be a philosophical belief, then more than half the British electorate would have a belief that fell within [equality laws], which could not be the intention of the legislation.

Half the British electorate has a religious belief which definitely falls under the protection of this law. What a peculiar justification.

Aaaahh! More of the good ol’ excepcionalism I see!

Welcome to the real world, darling. A political ideology is not something that deserves “protection” in the workplace.

[deleted]

>If, for example, ‘wanting to leave the EU’ was held to be a philosophical belief, then more than half the British electorate would have a belief that fell within [equality laws], which could not be the intention of the legislation.

I am not sure I see the logic here. I don’t think it’s the case that protected characteristics have to be unusual. Being a woman is a protected characteristic, as is a religious opinion, including atheism.

>Despite some probing, both by the tribunal and in cross-examination, no coherent belief or set of beliefs was forthcoming.

haha yes that sounds pretty normal.

Ngl it’s litterally a good indications of just how stuckup, racist or just plain stupid someone is.

Why the fuck shouldn’t that be considered as an indicator for employment

Not to mention if someone voted brexit, their contribution to that vote has probably cost the business they’re trying to get a job at a fair bit of money.

No sympathy.

I’m not disappearing with the ruling, but:

>If, for example, ‘wanting to leave the EU’ was held to be a philosophical belief, then more than half the British electorate would have a belief that fell within [equality laws], which could not be the intention of the legislation.

this is a weird statement. It’s absolutely the intent of the legislation; it’s possible that more than half the electorate could have a belief that is protected. An easy example would be if more than 50% were followers of a specific religion, or were members of a political party. Either of those things should not be grounds for dismissal. The amount of the population believing in something doesn’t affect whether that thing is protected.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-c-fairbanks-v-change-grow-live-2409700-slash-2023

There’s a link to the full judgment, it’s not long and it’s very obvious why this person didn’t win her case. The headline for this article is misleading.

She started a job at a charity without initially disclosing that she was a UKIP activist who was promoting Tommy Robinson posts online, IE advocating for a known racist who has on various occasions committed and incited hate crimes. During the hearing, and in the written submissions, she failed to explain what her philosophical beliefs actually were. She essentially said that she believed in UKIP, getting rid of the human rights act, and banning Halal butchers, without being able to give any underlying reasons or theories.

Presumably it would also be fine to sack someone for sharing pro-immigration social media content too then.

Well, duh, political views are obviously not protected characteristics. Am I missing something here?

I think it’s a bad employer that would pressure someone to leave based on their political views, mind you. But it isn’t a protected equality characteristic.

It sounds like she wasn’t fired for her politics, anyway, but for sending immigration related content to her colleagues. That’s disruptive, bad for workplace harmony and (assuming there were warnings and so on) seems fair enough.

It should fall under political views. It should be protected like anything else.