And speaking of different interpretations brings me to the minefield of University of Bristol v Miller [2026], in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the University of Bristol’s appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s decision on multiple claims from one Dr Miller.

Dr Miller was employed by the University of Bristol as Professor of Political Sociology from 1 September 2018 until his summary dismissal for gross misconduct on 1 October 2021. Before the events in question, he had not been subject to any disciplinary proceedings.

On 13 February 2021, at a public event entitled “Building the Campaign for Free Speech” Dr Miller expressed views in a speech that included describing Zionism as racist and saying that it needed to be ended. He also described the Bristol Jewish Society (JSoc) and the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) as “formally members of the Zionist movement”.

On 17 February 2021, Dr Miller provided a comment to the Jewish Chronicle, describing Jewish student groups as “political lobby groups”. He also stated that Jewish students were being used as “political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing”. The following day, he emailed a student journalist, describing Zionism as “a racist, violent, imperialist ideology premised on ethnic cleansing” and criticising the UJS and Bristol JSoc.

The University appointed a retired emeritus professor to investigate Dr Miller’s statements. It also appointed an independent investigator to consider whether his language went beyond acceptable speech, taking into account, among other matters, the Equality Act 2010. The independent investigator concluded that there was no formal case to answer. However, the retired professor recommended disciplinary proceedings for alleged breaches of the university’s rules and policies, mainly in relation to Dr Miller’s comments about Jewish students and student societies.

Professor Norman chaired the disciplinary hearing and dismissed Dr Miller for gross misconduct on 1 October 2021. The reasons for the decision were set out in a 53-page letter. Although Professor Norman recognised the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom, she considered that Dr Miller had abused the significant power imbalance between him and the students by singling out both them and their societies. She was also concerned by his view that students who engaged in political debate should expect the type of aggressive language he had used. Dr Miller’s internal appeal was rejected on 23 February 2022.

Dr Miller subsequently brought claims before the Employment Tribunal for belief discrimination, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The ET upheld his claims and found that his anti-Zionist belief qualified as a philosophical belief under the Grainger criteria.

The ET found that Dr Miller did not support the use of violence to oppose Zionism. It also found that the statements leading to Dr Miller’s dismissal had a sufficiently close and direct connection to his belief to constitute a manifestation of it. As that manifestation was a material factor in the decision to dismiss him, and dismissal without warning was not a proportionate response, his direct discrimination claim succeeded.

However, the ET did not accept that the finding of misconduct was itself an act of direct belief discrimination. It considered Dr Miller’s language inappropriate and blameworthy, noting that he could have expressed his views on Zionism without referring to student and University societies.

The university appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, while Dr Miller cross-appealed on three grounds.

The EAT dismissed the university’s appeal against the finding that Dr Miller’s belief was protected. It expressly rejected the argument that political beliefs fall outside section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. The EAT also upheld the finding that dismissal was disproportionate and therefore unlawful. However, it set aside the ET’s finding that there was a 30% chance that Dr Miller’s employment would have ended lawfully in October 2023. It remitted that issue to the same ET for redetermination at the remedy hearing. The EAT also dismissed all three grounds of Dr Miller’s cross-appeal.

This case is important for HR professionals and employers because it illustrates the need to distinguish carefully between an employee’s protected philosophical belief, the manifestation of that belief and any misconduct arising from the manner in which it is expressed. Political beliefs are not excluded from protection under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. Employers should therefore ensure that disciplinary investigations and decisions properly consider freedom of speech and the proportionality of any sanction, particularly where the conduct is closely connected to a protected belief. Although inappropriate language may still be treated as misconduct, dismissal may be disproportionate. Clear reasoning, a fair process and careful consideration of whether a lesser sanction would be appropriate are therefore essential.