Brexit views not protected from workplace discrimination, tribunal rules after woman sacked over ‘offensive’ posts
by Asher McShane · LBCBy Asher McShane
A former Ukip councillor was sacked from her job after sharing ‘offensive’ posts about immigrants on social media, a tribunal heard.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
Colette Fairbanks was sacked from her job at the drug and alcohol rehabilitation charity Change Grow Live and took her former employer to a tribunal claiming discrimination.
She claimed she had been bullied and harassed out of her job by her employer because she supported the UK’s departure from the EU.
But the tribunal dismissed her claims, with a judge saying that supporting Brexit is not a belief protected from workplace discrimination.
A judge said that views on Brexit are ‘strongly held opinions’, rather than a philosophical belief that would fall under equality laws.
Read more: Sixth person dies in Laos ‘methanol mass poisoning’ as hostel owner detained by police
Read more: US Embassy in London on 'lockdown' as police investigate 'suspect package'
Ms Fairbanks had claimed her views on Brexit were philosophical beliefs that should have been protected under the Equality Act.
Her views included a belief the UK should be outside of the EU, an opposition to illegal migration and being happy to leave the European convention on human rights.
Employment judge Paul Jumble, said: “There has to be a distinction between a philosophical belief and a strongly held opinion.
"If, for example, ‘wanting to leave the EU’ was held to be a philosophical belief, then more than half the British electorate would have a belief that fell within [equality laws], which could not be the intention of the legislation.
“Despite some probing, both by the tribunal and in cross examination, no coherent belief or set of beliefs was forthcoming.
“On balance, the tribunal found that the claimant had genuinely held opinions and views but she did not convince the tribunal that she had any underlying philosophical belief.”
The tribunal found that “there were social media posts which were said to have [been] made by the claimant and which no doubt would be found offensive by many”.