A UK Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld a ruling that former University of Bristol professor Dr. David Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs, as defined in his case, qualified as protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010.
Miller was employed as a professor of political sociology at the University of Bristol from September 2018 to October 2021. Miller was dismissed for gross misconduct relating to comments he made on three occasions during February 2021.
These included the following: saying, “the enemy we face here is Zionism and the imperial policies of the Israeli state”; asking that “Zionism is ended”; saying “Zionism is racism”; saying the Israeli state is the cause of antisemitism; arguing that Zionism deliberately fosters Islamophobia; and saying that “Jewish student groups [that support Israel] are a threat to the safety of Arab and Muslim students.”
Since October 7, his comments have included praising or legitimizing October 7, and calling for Zionists to “go home.”
UK tribunal rules professor’s anti-Zionism protected
After his dismissal, Miller brought a complaint in the Employment Tribunal arguing that his beliefs were protected philosophical beliefs, that he was harassed for his beliefs, and that he was wrongfully dismissed.
In Tuesday’s ruling, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld that the specific beliefs advanced by David Miller satisfied the test for a protected philosophical belief under section 10 of the Equality Act.
Those beliefs were defined as: that political Zionism (as Miller defined it) is inherently racist, imperialistic, and colonial; and that political Zionism, therefore, must be opposed.
EAT found those beliefs met the five criteria for protection, including being “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and also accepted Miller’s argument that he was not supportive of violence as a means of opposing Zionism.
The university tried to argue in the appeal that Miller’s description of his anti-Zionist beliefs did not accurately reflect his true beliefs. However, the Appeal Tribunal said that the university had not contested this at the Tribunal hearing and could not debate it now.
EAT did not rule that all anti-Zionist beliefs are protected, but that a particular anti-Zionist belief can qualify as a protected philosophical belief if it satisfies the Grainger criteria.
EAT also upheld the finding that Miller’s dismissal was discriminatory because dismissal was a disproportionate response.
The ruling does not establish that employers cannot dismiss an anti-Zionist employee.
The Tribunal, whose findings EAT had upheld, accepted that Bristol had legitimate aims in dismissing Miller, such as protecting staff, students, and the university’s reputation.
It said that disciplinary action short of dismissal could have been justified, but that dismissal itself was disproportionate on the facts of this case.
Additionally, EAT found that some of Miller’s conduct toward students was blameworthy, including aggressive comments directed at student societies.
It rejected some of his discrimination claims and concluded that his conduct contributed to his dismissal, reducing his compensation by 50% for contributory fault.
Following the ruling, Miller posted on X/Twitter: “We have set a binding legal precedent! Anti-Zionism is now a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. Full stop.”
“This is a public humiliation for the genocidal Zionist regime, whose assets in Britain bullied the university into sacking me and then dragged them into this futile appeal. Their legal strategy has collapsed. Their pressure campaign has spectacularly backfired.”
As noted above, this is not correct.
Jonathan Turner, director of UK Lawyers for Israel, told The Jerusalem Post: “It is important to understand that both the Tribunal and the Appeal Tribunal decided the case on the basis of David Miller’s particular description of anti-Zionism. They did not find that all forms of anti-Zionism are protected under the Equality Act.”
“Overall, the Tribunal found that both the university and David Miller were at fault. Miller is likely to be awarded some compensation, but not reinstated.”
Turner noted that the appeal decision, in fact, provides further support for the view that legitimate forms of Zionism are also protected under the Equality Act. This is in line with the earlier decision in the McEleny case that a belief in Scottish Independence was protected.
“This means that discriminating against, harassing, or victimizing someone because of their Zionist views is liable to breach the Equality Act,” he added.