You may recall the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations, which came into force on 2^nd December 2003. 

In these Regulations religion means any religion, and belief means any religious or philosophical belief.  A reference to religion includes a reference to lack of religion and a reference to belief includes a reference to lack of belief. 

Although there have been cases involving claims for discrimination based on these Regulations, they do not, as a rule, excite any particular interest to the public at large.

There have been discussions as to what constitutes a philosophical belief.  For example, it is established that atheism can be a philosophical belief.

But what about a person who maintains that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperatives is a philosophical belief for the purposes of these Regulations and states that he was dismissed for holding those beliefs and not for redundancy which his employer maintains was the reason for his dismissal?

This is the actual situation in a case currently before an Employment Tribunal. 

At a preliminary hearing there was an argument as to whether or not the Claimant in this case, a Mr T. Nicholson, who states that he holds a strong philosophical belief about climate change and the environment, is actually capable of being a philosophical belief within the meaning of the 2003 Regulations.  Not surprisingly, his former employer disagrees and maintains, equally as strongly, that he was dismissed for redundancy because of economic pressures during this past year.

The Employment Tribunal held that such a belief was capable of being a philosophical belief.  The employers appealed against this preliminary ruling and the Employment Appeal Tribunal published its Judgment on 3^rd November 2003. 

This Judgment has agreed with the Employment Tribunal to the extent that “the asserted belief held by the Claimant, Mr Nicholson, upon which he bases his claim of discrimination is capable of being a belief for the purposes of the 2003 Regulations”.

This case is now going to be heard in full, but if this Claimant wins, this could open the floodgates for a number of similar claims. 

Watch this space...