A tribunal was called upon recently to decide whether an employee who believed in his psychic ability to tell the future was discriminated against when he was dismissed. Was his freedom to manifest his belief as important as a colleague’s right to work in an environment free from harassment? Once again, we come up against the difficulties of conflicting rights in the workplace. 

Learning point

Not all beliefs are protected by the Equality Act 2010. A belief that does not follow a set religion or faith must meet the Grainger criteria. Even if it does, (and it did not in this case) an employer must still be mindful of their duty to protect other employees from harassment which may occur following an employee’s manifestation of that belief. 

Case details

This case concerned an employee who claimed that he could foresee the future in his dreams. When a new colleague joined the organisation, he alleged that he had had several dreams about her, knew her name and knew they would meet at some point in the future. While working together he told her that she was “haunting me in my dreams” and that he was “trapped and stunned by the essence of her smell”. 

Initially, the colleague (who was female and younger), reported finding the behaviour ‘weird’, but this turned to ‘alarm’ and she expressed her disquiet about seeing him at work. Concern was raised about the sexual nature of the dreams and the descriptions and claims. The male colleague was ultimately dismissed. 

The employee brought a discrimination claim to a tribunal. He alleged that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of his ability to see into the future. 

The belief, in this case, was put forward upon specific grounds as ‘a strong belief in precognitive/premonitory/prophetic dreams and premonitions and accordingly, that certain dreams and premonitions predict or foretell the future and the claimant is gifted with the psychic ability to foresee future events in his dreams and premonitions, the majority of which come to pass; and he believes his dreams and premonitions always come true.'

The claimant said that this belief was protected under the Equality Act 2010 and therefore he had been dismissed for manifesting his protected belief. 

When is a belief protected?

There have been several high-profile cases recently on what amounts to a protected belief under the Equality Act. The key guidance outlined in the case of Grainger PLC v Nicholson from 2010. There are five stages to that test, and an individual must meet all five stages for their belief to be protected. Those five stages are:

1. The belief must be genuinely held.
2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

Was the belief protected in this case? 

The employer in this case disputed points three and four of the ‘Grainger’ principles.  

The tribunal found that for point three, ‘the belief he is seeking to rely on is very specifically about his own gift’. They concluded that it was therefore a narrowly focused belief and was not of general importance. 

As to point four, the belief must have a similar status and cogency to a religious belief. It doesn’t have to govern every aspect of an individual’s life, but it must be a fully-fledged system of thought. With the claimant’s evidence, the belief did not influence his conduct at work and had a small impact on his conduct outside of work, as he only shares his dreams on a limited basis.

The tribunal concluded that his belief was not protected by the Equality Act 2010 and hence there could be no finding of discrimination. 

What if the belief had been protected? 

If the tribunal had found that the belief was protected, he would have needed to demonstrate that the manifestation of his belief e.g. his sharing the dreams and their detail with his colleague, was directly related to that belief and was appropriate. 

The tribunal found that it was the claimant’s standard practice only to tell close friends and family of dreams. It was not a requirement of his belief that he shared his dreams beyond a small circle and therefore not an essential manifestation of his belief that he does so. Even if he had succeeded in arguing that his belief was protected, the manifestation of this belief was not a necessary part of the belief. 

What are the wider lessons? 

• Employers should not be too quick to dismiss employees’ belief systems however unfamiliar they may appear - The tribunals, rightly so, will take individuals’ beliefs seriously and will address how far they are protected under the Equality Act 2010. It is worth noting that in this case, had the claimant believed more widely in the belief of dreams and this had been a more fundamental element of his life rather than a focus on his ability with little implications for his life, the tribunal might have reached a different conclusion.     
• An employee’s belief does not justify all behaviours – Any manifestation of a particular belief must be related to the belief and must be appropriate. The right of an employee to practise or manifest their belief is not an absolute one – it must be weighed against the rights of others in the workplace.     
• Be mindful of the employer’s new duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. The facts of this case took place before October 2024 when this new preventative duty came into force. Where an employee’s manifestation of their belief creates an environment that is ‘unwanted conduct of a sexual nature’, this constitutes sexual harassment under the Equality Act 2010. An employer must now take reasonable steps to prevent such behaviour so they must address inappropriate behaviour in whatever form as soon as it arises. 
• Avoid knee-jerk reactions to a conflict of rights – whilst an employer must be quick to respond, they should not be quick to make hasty decisions. The dismissal of an employee is not the only option should their beliefs prove problematic. Whilst an employer must protect its staff, that includes a willingness to engage with the employee who is holding the belief (protected or otherwise) and help them understand the effect their behaviour is having on others whilst also working to ensure the colleague (and others) feel safe in their working environment. 

For more information

If you need any further information about dealing with conflicting rights and/or the duty to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, please contact me.