EAT upholds finding that University Professor’s anti-Zionist belief protected under Equality Act 2010

05/08/26

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) handed down judgment in University of Bristol v Miller [2026] EAT 84, a significant appeal on the scope of protection against belief discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The judgment confirms that employees who express political beliefs in the workplace, including controversial speech relating to Israel-Palestine, may enjoy protection from sanction under equality law.

The Claimant, Dr David Miller, was dismissed from his post as Professor of Political Sociology by the University of Bristol in 2021. In 2023, the Bristol Employment Tribunal ruled that the Claimant had been dismissed because of comments which included the expression of philosophical beliefs protected by s 10 Equality Act 2010, namely his belief that political Zionism is “inherently racist, imperialistic and colonial”, and that it “ought therefore to be opposed”. His dismissal was therefore directly discriminatory in breach of s 13 Equality Act 2010.

The EAT panel, chaired by Lord Fairley (President), unanimously dismissed the University’s appeal to the findings that the Claimant’s were protected. It explicitly rejected the submission that political beliefs were excluded from the protection of s 10 Equality Act 2010 and/or Article 9 ECHR. In upholding the finding that the Claimant’s belief was ‘cogent’, the EAT further reasoned: “[I]t is coherent to describe as “racist” an ideology that promotes the establishment of a state for only one race of people in a territory that contains a large number of people of a different race. Such an ideology, which supports the migration of members of the first group into the territory with the support of an imperial power to dislodge an indigenous population, could also coherently be described as colonial and imperialistic.”

The EAT moreover upheld the Bristol Employment Tribunal’s finding that the Claimant’s dismissal was disproportionate and therefore unlawful, concluding that the “litany of criticisms levelled by the [University]” at the first-instance decision were “ultimately no more than expressions of disagreement… and an attempt to re-try the issue of proportionality”.

The EAT also dismissed the remainder of the University’s grounds of appeal, barring a finding that the Bristol Employment Tribunal’s finding that there was a 30% that the Claimant would later have been lawfully dismissed was insufficiently reasoned. This issue was remitted for determination at the remedy hearing. The Claimant’s cross-appeal was also dismissed.

Gianna Seglias acted for Dr Miller, led by Zac Sammour (11 KBW). She was instructed by Zillur Rahman (Rahman Lowe Solicitors).