The People Bulletin

Wearing a poppy in November is not a philosophical belief, according to employment judge

17 November 2011

This year’s Remembrance day was unique for a number of reasons from the date (11/11/11) to the overturned Poppy ban for England’s football players. However, as this case demonstrates strength of feeling does not necessarily equate to a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.

In a pre-hearing review, an employment judge has held that an ex-serviceman's stated belief that "we should pay our respects to those who have given their lives for us by wearing a poppy from All Souls' Day on 2 November to Remembrance Sunday" is not a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.

In the case of Lisk v Shield Guardian Co. Ltd., Mr Lisk brought various discrimination claims after he was made redundant, including that he was subjected to direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation under the provisions in the Equality Act 2010 prohibiting religion or belief discrimination. The employer is alleged to have prevented him from wearing a poppy at work from 2 November 2010.

The case

Mr Lisk argued that he has a "philosophical belief" that:

"we should pay our respects to those who have given their lives for us by wearing a poppy from All Souls' Day on 2 November to Remembrance Sunday"; or
"it is necessary to show respect to those who gave their lives by wearing a poppy".

Mr Lisk argued that wearing a poppy is nationally recognised and he wears a poppy every year from All Souls' Day and also on days other than the remembrance period. Mr Lisk, who is a Christian, said that he equates his belief to the seriousness with which he observes Lent. He feels that, as an ex-serviceman, he considers that he has an obligation to show respect for the sacrifices of others. He made the point that his wearing a poppy did not conflict with the rights of anyone else in the workplace at the time of the alleged incident.

The Employment Tribunal applied the test set out in Grainger Plc v Nicholson, which provides that, to constitute a “philosophical belief” for the purpose of anti-discrimination law, a belief must fulfill the following criteria:

It must be genuinely held.
It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Decision

The employment judge did not question the seriousness and genuineness of Mr Lisk's belief. However, the judge found that it is not simply a question of whether or not somebody's choice to wear a poppy should be respected, but whether or not there is a belief underpinning that choice that amounts to a "philosophical belief". The judge concluded that, however admirable, Mr Lisk's belief is too "narrow" to be characterised as a "philosophical belief". According to the judge, it "lacks the characteristics of cogency, cohesion and importance" required by the Grainger case.

The employment judge concluded that the complaints of direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the protected ground of philosophical belief could not proceed.