The Employment Appeal Tribunal has recently found that a belief held by only one person, cannot give rise to an indirect discrimination claim on the ground of philosophical belief.
The claimant worked for Mulberry as a Market Support Assistant: a role which gave her access to some of Mulberry’s designs ahead of their launch to market. To protect those designs, Mulberry required the claimant to sign a Copyright Agreement, signing over copyright of all copyright works and designs originated, conceived, written or made by her. She refused to sign the agreement because she was concerned it would interfere with her artistic activities as a writer and film-maker away from work. Mulberry reassured her that it was not interested in obtaining copyright to her personal work and offered her a revised agreement, clarifying that only work which related to Mulberry’s business would be covered. However, the claimant refused to sign and when no resolution could be reached, she was dismissed. Interestingly, the claimant did not explain at any point during her employment, that she had a philosophical belief on the matter or that that was the reason for her refusal to sign.
In the tribunal, the claimant asserted that she had a belief in ‘the statutory human or moral right to own the copyright and moral rights of her own creative works and output’ and that amounted to a philosophical belief. She brought claims, including an indirect discrimination claim on the basis that Mulberry’s requirement for her to sign the copyright agreement put her at a particular disadvantage because of her belief in the sanctity of copyright, which would also put others with the same belief at a disadvantage and which was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that her claim for discrimination on the grounds of belief was not made out. It found that the belief was not sufficiently cohesive to form any cogent philosophical belief system. Of more interest, it went on to conclude that even if it was wrong, it could not amount to indirect discrimination because the claimant was the only person known to hold this belief. There was therefore no evidence of others sharing the disadvantage and no group disadvantage on which to base an indirect discrimination claim.
Since the purpose of indirect discrimination is to eliminate unjustified group discrimination, this appears to be a sound decision. Permission has been given to appeal so we may not have heard the last on this issue. Perhaps the claimant may even engage her film-making abilities to bring it to a screen near you…