Environmentalists are protected by UK Discrimination Law - Appeal Tribunal decides
Publication date: 3 November 2009
Tim Nicholson, the Senior Executive and Environmentalist who has claimed he was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against because of his ‘philosophical belief about climate change and the environment’ has succeeded in defending a Tribunal decision that his views are protected by the UK’s anti-discrimination legislation.
His lawyer Shah Qureshi, Head of Employment Law at leading London law firm Bindmans LLP, said:
“This case confirms, for the ever increasing number of people who take a philosophical stance on the environment and climate change and who lead their lives according to those principles, that they are protected from discrimination by Corporates and others.”
In a landmark ruling Mr Justice Burton decided that:
“A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”.
Under those Regulations it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs.
Tim Nicholson was Head of Sustainability at Grainger Plc, the UK’s largest listed residential landlord with approximately £2.3 billion assets until his employment was terminated in July 2008. He claims that one of the reasons for his dismissal was his strong views on the environment and climate change which placed him at odds with the company’s hierarchy.
During the original Tribunal hearing he claimed that, although Grainger Plc had good written policies on the environment and corporate social responsibility, it refused to abide by them. When he tried to encourage the company to become more responsible he alleges that he was obstructed by Senior Executives, including Rupert Dickinson, the company’s Chief Executive.
In his statement Mr Nicholson cited at the original tribunal a number of examples of where Grainger Plc’s actions differed from its public proclamations on the environment. For example, he tried to develop a carbon management strategy, but when he tried to access the required data to implement this, he was blocked with the company’s finance and human resources departments refusing to provide important data. His written statement to the Tribunal revealed an apparent disdain for cutting carbon emissions and then:
“He [Mr Dickinson] showed contempt for the need to cut carbon emissions by flying out a member of the IT staff to Ireland to deliver his Blackberry that he had left behind in London”.
Mr Nicholson also claimed that the company’s Executives attended meetings in “some of the most highly polluting cars on the road”.
Grainger Plc applied for Mr Nicholson’s claim under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations to be struck out. It alleged that his views on climate change and the environment could not amount to a philosophical belief because they were based on fact and science. However, the original Employment Judge Sneath found that:
“The Claimant has certain views about climate change and acts upon those views in the way in which he leads his life. In my judgment, his belief goes beyond a mere opinion.”
Mr Nicholson confirmed that his views on the environment and climate change affected his whole lifestyle. In his statement to the Tribunal Mr Nicholson confirmed that his belief:
“…affects how I live my life including my choice of home, how I travel, what I buy, what I eat and drink, what I do with my waste and my hopes and fears. For example, I no longer travel by plane, I have eco-renovated my home, I compost my food waste and encourage others to reduce their carbon emissions.”
Grainger Plc appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal asserting that “a belief about climate change and the environment… is not a religious or philosophical belief within the Regulations but is rather a political view about science and/or the world.”
Mr Justice Burton rejected that view stating that a political belief could also be a philosophical belief. He suggested that “belief in the political philosophies of Socialism, Marxism, Communism or free-market Capitalism might qualify [for protection]”. In his judgment “if a person can establish that he holds a philosophical belief which is based on science…then there is no reason to disqualify it from protection by the Regulations.”
Shah Qureshi of Bindmans LLP commented:
“The mere fact that a belief in climate change can also be a political view about science or the world does not detract from the fact that it can also be a deeply held philosophical belief. Otherwise, the end result would be that the more evidence there is to support your views, the less likely it would be for you to enjoy protection against discrimination.
Tim Nicholson believes his views are sufficiently cogent, serious and important to receive protection under the Regulations.
Vast numbers of people are now living their lives in accordance with their views on climate change and the environment. These are often deeply held views based on the premise that without change humanity will suffer. Tim Nicholson believes that people should be able to express such views without fear of retribution or discrimination.”
Tim Nicholson commented:
“This ruling is a victory for common sense that is important not only for me, but for anyone who is suffering from discrimination due to their belief in man made climate change. I believe that climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of averting this catastrophe. This philosophical belief – which is based on scientific evidence – has now been given the same protection in law as faith based religious beliefs.
Belief in man-made climate change is not the new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underpinned by the overwhelming scientific consensus.”
Dinah Rose QC and Ivan Hare from Blackstone Chambers advocated on behalf of Tim Nicholson at the Employment Tribunal hearing.
Ends
Notes for Editors:
Please attribute all quotes from Shah Qureshi to Bindmans LLP.
Press Coverage
Please click below to view the related press coverage:
- Eco-employee wins bid to appeal (BBC News, 3rd November 2009)
- Judge rules activist's beliefs on climate change akin to religion (The Guardian, 3rd November 2009)
- Climate change belief given same legal status as religion (The Telegraph, 3rd November 2009)
- Green beliefs given same status as religion (Channel 4 News, 3rd November 2009)
- Green crusader wins tribunal battle (Metro, 3rd November 2009)
- Ex-employee can sue for unfair dismissal over climate change beliefs (Personnel Today, 3rd November 2009)
- Surveyor wins "philosophical belief" battle (Solicitors Journal, 3rd November 2009)
Please click here to listen to a podcast on the case:
- Climate Belief Ruling (CBC Canada Radio, 4th November 2009)
Judgment
Please click on the link below for a copy of the Judgment.
For further information please contact:
- Shah Qureshi, Partner and Head of Employment Law
Bindmans LLP
T: 020 7833 4433
M: 07775 826 759
E: s.qureshi@bindmans.com
