Religion and belief cases continue to be dominant and challenging in the workplace. Employers and tribunals have to grapple with issues such as, is a belief sufficiently cogent to warrant protection, is it so objectionable that it should not be protected, how does an employer accommodate opposing viewpoints? Coming up, we can expect EAT decisions in 2026 on the following interesting cases:
EAT – religion/belief cases
Miller v University of Bristol – philosophical belief in anti-Zionsim
ET held a professor at Bristol University was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against when he was dismissed for expressing anti-Zionist views and conveying these to a student group.
Corby v Acas – philosophical belief in "common humanity" approach to racism
Conciliation officer who objected to ideological approach that racism is structural, and preferred Martin Luther King's philosophy of judging a person by their character rather than the colour of their skin, held a protected philosophical belief.
Lister v New Swindon College – dismissal in context of gender critical views
Mr Lister was fairly dismissed after raising safeguarding concerns about a female student transitioning to male. He shared his concerns with the student's parents, in breach of his employer's policy. Lister held a genuine belief that gender reassignment is harmful. ET found his dismissal to be fair (his discrimination claims were out of time but ET considered such claims would not have succeeded).
Further developments following the Supreme Court For Women Scotland case
Following the For Women Scotland case on the meaning of "sex", we are still awaiting the Government's approval of the EHRC's Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations.
Meanwhile, two Employment Tribunal decisions in 2025 (Sandie Peggie v Fife Health Board and another and Maria Kelly v Leonardo UK), and one in 2026 (Hutchinson and others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust) were significant because they involved rows about transgender women accessing female toilets and/or changing rooms. Sandie Peggie won part of her discrimination claim but failed to establish that a policy of allowing transgender women to use female changing rooms is inherently unlawful. Maria Kelly lost her sex discrimination and harassment claim that her dignity was violated by her employer's policy of allowing transgender women to use female toilets. Ms Hutchinson and others won their indirect sex discrimination and harassment claims, with a tribunal finding that the employer's trans-inclusive policy on access to female changing rooms violated their dignity. An appellate decision on this particular issue (the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, which require adequate provision for women and men in respect of toilets and changing rooms) would be helpful. It is reported that the Peggie and Kelly cases are being appealed.
