## Facts

- Tim Nicholson’s employment with Grainger plc ended on July 31, 2008; the employer asserted redundancy, while Nicholson alleged unfair dismissal and discrimination based on religion or belief.
- Nicholson claimed he held a strongly held belief that human activity is causing catastrophic climate change and that people have a moral duty to reduce carbon emissions and persuade others to do so.
- He asserted the belief affected many aspects of his daily life, including housing, travel, purchasing, diet, and waste choices.
- Nicholson brought claims under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, which prohibit discrimination because of “religion or belief,” including “philosophical belief.”
- At a pre-hearing review, the Employment Tribunal ruled Nicholson’s asserted belief was capable, as a matter of law, of amounting to a protected philosophical belief.
- Grainger appealed, challenging only that preliminary legal ruling (not the merits of dismissal or discrimination).

## Issues

1. Whether Nicholson’s asserted belief in human-caused climate change and related moral duties is capable of constituting a protected “philosophical belief” under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
2. What legal criteria govern when a conviction qualifies as a “philosophical belief” for discrimination protection.
3. Whether beliefs with scientific or political elements are excluded from protection.
4. Whether, and how, ECHR jurisprudence informs interpretation of “philosophical belief” in the Regulations.

## Decision

- The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed Grainger’s appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion that Nicholson’s belief was capable of being a protected philosophical belief.
- The EAT held ECHR jurisprudence was directly relevant to construing “philosophical belief” under the Regulations.
- The EAT articulated criteria for assessing philosophical belief (often referred to as the “Grainger criteria”).
- The EAT found the Tribunal erred by effectively assuming Nicholson genuinely held the belief without an evidentiary inquiry.
- The case was remitted for factual determination, including evidence and cross-examination, on whether Nicholson genuinely held the asserted belief.

## Legal Principles

- A “philosophical belief” can be protected if it is of comparable cogency and seriousness to a religious belief, even though it is non-religious.
- In determining whether a conviction is a protected philosophical belief, relevant criteria include:
  - the belief is genuinely held;
  - it is a belief rather than a mere opinion or viewpoint based on currently available information;
  - it concerns a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behavior;
  - it attains a sufficient level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance; and
  - it is worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity, and does not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
- A belief is not disqualified merely because it has scientific or political content; the focus is on the belief’s seriousness, coherence, and normative character.
- Whether a claimant genuinely holds the asserted belief is a question of fact requiring evidence where contested.

## Conclusion

The EAT held that a sincere conviction about human-caused climate change coupled with moral imperatives could fall within statutory protection for “philosophical belief,” established criteria for assessing such beliefs, and required a factual inquiry into whether the claimant genuinely held the belief.


Grainger plc & Ors v. Nicholson, Appeal No. UKEAT/0219/09/ZT (EAT 2009)