And speaking of getting the shudders brings me to the recent unlovely case of Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether Mr Thomas’ belief was a protected one under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010).  

Mr Thomas was engaged through an employment agency to provide consultancy services to the NHS Trust for just under three months. The employment agency notified Mr Thomas that his assignment had been terminated as it had come to the attention of the Trust that he failed to disclose an unspent conviction and had been dishonest throughout his CV and application form. 

Mr Thomas believed this was not the true reason for his dismissal and brought a claim of discrimination on the grounds of religion and/or belief. The Trust affirmed the true reasoning for his dismissal were due to his dishonesty and failure to disclose information and contended that his belief was not protected under the EqA 2010.

A preliminary hearing was therefore held to determine if Mr Thomas’ beliefs were protected for the purposes of the EqA 2010.

At the preliminary hearing, the Employment Tribunal determined that Mr Thomas' belief in English nationalism was not protected under the EqA 2010 and this subsequently led Mr Thomas to appeal the decision.

The EAT dismissed his appeal and agreed with the ET’s decision. 

The EAT emphasised that Mr Thomas’ anti-Islamic views and use of hashtags such as "#RemoveAllMuslims" and tweets expressing negative views about Islam without similar remarks directed at any other religion, as well as his "focus on one religion, and ill-informed disparaging and often recklessly offensive comments" conflicted with fundamental rights and human dignity and therefore were not worthy of respect in a democratic society. 

While the EAT acknowledged that political beliefs including nationalism can be protected under the Act, it clarified that such protection has limits. This case clarifies that the tribunal were correct to conclude that Mr Thomas’ views, which were largely derived from social media and unreliable sources, amounted to "pure prejudice" rather than a protected philosophical belief for the purposes of the Act.

This ruling shows the fine line between protected beliefs and those that promote intolerance, harassment or hatred. Employers should be mindful of their obligations under the Equality Act 2010 while also ensuring a workplace culture that respects inclusivity and fundamental rights. While different beliefs should be approached sensitively, this case reaffirms that employers are justified in challenging and addressing behaviours that stray into prejudice or harassment of minority groups.

The case serves as a crucial reminder that while the threshold for protection under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 is relatively low, beliefs that endorse exclusion, discrimination or hostility toward certain groups will not be protected. Employers should ensure they are aware of these boundaries and foster an environment where diversity and inclusion are upheld and promoted.