The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a ruling that the University of Bristol unfairly dismissed Professor David Miller and discriminated against him because of his anti-Zionist beliefs.

Professor David Miller, a political sociology academic at the University of Bristol, was dismissed in October 2021 after a disciplinary process arising from comments he had made about Zionism, Israel, Jewish student groups and related political issues.

The university concluded that he had failed to meet its standards of behaviour and dismissed Professor Miller. Professor Miller subsequently brought claims including unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and discrimination because of his philosophical beliefs.

The university argued that Professor Miller’s anti-Zionist views were political and therefore not protected under the Equality Act 2010. However, the EAT disagreed, confirming that a belief does not lose legal protection simply because it relates to a political or social issue.

Importantly, the case reinforces a key principle for employers: the law may protect an employee’s beliefs, even where those beliefs are controversial or unpopular. Employers must therefore be careful to distinguish between the belief itself and the way in which it is expressed.

That does not mean employees have free rein to say whatever they like. The tribunal found that some of Professor Miller’s comments contributed to the circumstances surrounding his dismissal and reduced any compensation award by 50% for contributory fault. This highlights that while beliefs may be protected, conduct and language can still have consequences.

The decision is particularly relevant for universities and other organisations where freedom of expression and academic freedom must be balanced against maintaining a respectful and inclusive working environment. Getting that balance wrong can expose employers to greater risk.

For employers in general, it’s an important reminder that disciplinary action should focus on specific conduct, policy breaches and legitimate workplace concerns, rather than the underlying belief. Where controversial speech is involved, investigations must be balanced and capable of demonstrating that any action taken is because of behaviour, not because the employer disagrees with the employee’s views.