Anti-Zionism and 'protected belief': what the recent Equality Act ruling means for employers

Faith communities, and the people within them, hold deep convictions — about God and the world, about justice, and about the most contested questions of the day. A recent employment-law ruling has placed one such conviction — a belief opposing Zionism — under a new legal lens: it can now, in the right circumstances, be a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010. For a faith-based organisation that is also an employer, this matters, because an employee's deeply-held belief — one they may hold as part of their faith, their conscience or their wider worldview — may now carry legal protection. This is a neutral, factual explainer. It takes no position on whether such a belief is right or wrong, on Zionism or anti-Zionism, or on the wider conflict; it is only about what the law now protects, and what that means for you as an employer. It is general information, not advice — a complex and sensitive area where you should take professional legal and HR advice on any specific situation.

What "protected belief" means under the Equality Act

Under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010, "religion or belief" is a protected characteristic — and "belief" includes philosophical beliefs (and a lack of belief). A belief doesn't qualify automatically; it must meet a five-part test set out in the case of Grainger plc v Nicholson. Broadly, the belief must:

1. be genuinely held;
2. be a belief, not merely an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information;
3. concern a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
4. attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and
5. be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity, and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

This is a well-established mechanism: over the years, tribunals have found a range of beliefs to be protected in this way — from ethical veganism to gender-critical beliefs to a belief in climate change. Importantly, that a belief is protected says nothing about whether it is right — only that a person cannot be discriminated against for holding it.

What the ruling actually said

In the case of Dr David Miller v University of Bristol, an Employment Tribunal (2024) and, on appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that his particular anti-Zionist belief met the Grainger test and therefore qualified as a protected philosophical belief, and that his dismissal was connected to that belief. Because it is an EAT decision, it carries real weight (EAT decisions bind Employment Tribunals), which is why it is being described as a significant ruling.

But the precise scope matters, and is easily overstated:

• It found that a particular anti-Zionist belief can qualify — not that all anti-Zionism is automatically protected. Each case still turns on its own facts.
• It did not rule that an employer can never dismiss someone who holds such beliefs. It is the belief that is protected — not every action taken, or every way it is expressed.
• The tribunal treated opposition to Zionism as a political ideology as legally distinct from hostility towards Jewish people.

A new lens for faith communities and their employees

For many people, beliefs like this are not idle opinions but deeply-held convictions — sometimes bound up with their faith, their conscience or their sense of identity. Within and across faith communities, individuals hold a wide range of sincere and opposing views on these questions: some will hold anti-Zionist beliefs as a serious part of who they are, just as others hold Zionist or entirely different beliefs. (It would be quite wrong to associate any belief with a whole faith — communities are not monolithic.)

What this ruling changes is the lens. A conviction that might once have been treated simply as a political opinion may now, if it meets the legal test, be a protected belief — no different in that respect from a religious belief. For a faith-based organisation that employs people of deep conviction, the key shift is one of awareness: recognising that an employee's belief may be legally protected, and that your task as an employer is not to judge whether it is right or wrong, but to treat the person fairly and lawfully. That is the distinction that matters — and it is the same discipline the law already asks of you in respect of religious belief itself.

What it does — and does not — mean

Three distinctions are essential, and getting them right is where employers most often go wrong:

• Belief versus conduct. Protection attaches to holding (and legitimately expressing) a belief. It does not protect harassment, unlawful conduct, or expression that crosses into discriminating against or harassing others. An employer can still address behaviour that goes beyond the lawful holding and expression of a belief.
• Not a blanket rule. The ruling does not make "anti-Zionism" a protected characteristic in the abstract; it confirms that a specific belief, meeting the Grainger criteria, can be protected.
• Antisemitism remains unlawful. Jewish people are protected under the Equality Act by the characteristics of race and religion, and antisemitic discrimination or harassment is unlawful — this ruling does not change that in any way. Protection of one person's belief never licenses the harassment of another.

What it means for faith-based organisations as employers

For any organisation that employs people, the practical implications are about even-handedness:

• Don't discriminate on the basis of a protected belief. You should not dismiss, refuse to promote, or otherwise disadvantage a worker simply because they hold — or lawfully express — a protected belief. This principle applies across the spectrum of beliefs, not only the one in this case.
• Do address conduct where it is warranted. Harassment, unlawful expression, or conduct that breaches your policies can still be addressed — the key is to act on the conduct, fairly and consistently, rather than on the mere holding of a belief.
• Protect everyone equally. You have a duty to keep the workplace free of discrimination and harassment for all staff — including Jewish employees. A safe, respectful workplace for everyone is the goal, and the two protections are meant to coexist.
• Review your policies and train managers. Equality, dignity-at-work and social-media policies, and manager training on handling belief-related issues fairly, are your best protection.
• Take advice on specific situations. Balancing competing rights and beliefs is genuinely difficult, and the facts of each case matter — this is exactly the kind of area where professional legal and HR advice is worth taking early.

The bottom line

For faith-based organisations, the deeper point is a shift of lens: a deeply-held conviction that some employees carry — as part of their faith, conscience or worldview — may now be a protected belief, and the employer's task is awareness and fair treatment, not judgement of its rightness or wrongness. The ruling clarifies that a philosophical belief opposing Zionism can, on the right facts, be a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010 — but it is not a blanket protection, it does not shield unlawful conduct, and it sits alongside the equally important protection of Jewish, and all, employees from discrimination and harassment. For employers, the watchwords are even-handedness, focus on conduct rather than belief, and careful, advised handling of difficult situations — with a firm commitment to a workplace that is safe and respectful for everyone.

---

This article is general information, not advice, and takes no position on the underlying political questions. Discrimination and employment law in this area is complex, fact-specific and developing; always check the current position and take professional legal and HR advice before acting in any individual case. For help with the governance and policy side, get in touch.

Sources verified (August 2026):

• Legislation.gov.uk — Equality Act 2010, section 10 (religion or belief) — https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10
• 11KBW — Anti-Zionist academic successful in claim for philosophical belief discrimination (legal analysis of the case) — https://www.11kbw.com/knowledge-events/news/anti-zionist-academic-successful-in-claim-for-philosophical-belief-discrimination/
• Scottish Legal News — Employment Tribunal rules that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected under Equality Act — https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/employment-tribunal-rules-that-anti-zionist-beliefs-are-protected-under-equality-act
• Industrial Law Journal — Anti-Zionism as 'Protected Belief': The Case of David Miller (academic commentary) — https://academic.oup.com/ilj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/indlaw/dwaf048/8339654