In the case of Mrs C F v Change Grow Live, Mrs. CF was employed as a recovery worker by Change Grow Live (CGL), a charity based in Fleetwood, from October 2022 until her dismissal in July 2023. Previously, she had served as a local councillor for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) from around 2017 to 2019. During her job interview, she disclosed her experience as a councillor but did not reveal the political party she had represented.
She alleged that tensions with her employer began in February 2023, after a colleague informed her manager of her past affiliation with UKIP. She claimed that she was subsequently subjected to bullying and harassment by CGL due to her UKIP membership, culminating in her dismissal over Twitter/X posts—one of which, she maintained, was not hers. Her primary grievance was that her UKIP membership led to her unfair treatment and eventual dismissal.
At a preliminary hearing, Mrs. CF argued that her beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief protected under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. When the tribunal clarified that political party membership alone does not constitute a philosophical belief, she identified her core beliefs as: opposition to the EU, opposition to illegal migration, opposition to halal slaughter, and a preference for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
While the tribunal accepted that her views were sincerely held, it questioned whether they constituted philosophical beliefs or were merely strong opinions based on current information.
In its assessment, the tribunal noted that her evidence consistently referred to “political beliefs” or her UKIP membership, with no substantive reference to philosophical beliefs. The tribunal also observed that if beliefs such as “wanting to leave the EU” were classified as philosophical beliefs, a significant portion of the British electorate could potentially fall under Section 10 of the Equality Act—an outcome unlikely to align with the legislation’s intent.
Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that Mrs. Fairbanks held genuine opinions but lacked an overarching philosophical belief. It stated:
“It cannot be sufficient for a claimant to arrive at a hearing and outline four opinions, however genuinely held, and expect these to be accepted as philosophical beliefs. Nor is membership of a political party enough, in itself, to amount to a philosophical belief.”
As a result, her claim was dismissed.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
