In-depth
Is sport a philosophical belief?
Although many football fans may disagree, the recent case of McClung v Doosan Babcock Ltd (and others) demonstrates that not every set of beliefs (however genuinely held) will be protected under employment legislation.
Background on philosophical beliefs
The Equality Act 2010 (“EA2010”) provides protection for workers who are discriminated against because of a religious or philosophical belief, as this is one of the ‘protected characteristics’ set out in Section 4 EA2010.
Whilst what amounts to a religious belief is often apparent, it can be much more difficult to determine what amounts to a philosophical belief.
For a philosophical belief to be protected under EA2010:
- 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; and
- it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
The case
On 1 June 2022, at a preliminary hearing, the Employment Tribunal determined if support for Glasgow Rangers Football Club was a philosophical belief within the meaning of Section 10(2) EA2010.
About the claimant
The claimant in the case, Mr McClung, was an avid Rangers supporter and had been for around 42 years.
He was a member of Rangers, received a birthday card from them each year, spent most of his disposable income on games, and woke up “buzzing” on match days.
Mr McClung considered supporting Rangers was a way of life and that it was as important to him as it was for religious people to go to church.
Alleged discrimination
Mr McClung temporarily carried out work for Doosan Babcock (a construction company). He brought proceedings in which he alleged that his manager at Doosan Babcock, Mr Ross, did not offer Mr McClung further employment because Mr Ross was a Celtic fan. Mr McClung alleged that the reason he was not offered further work was due to his support for a rival football team and that his support of Rangers was a philosophical belief.
Outcome
The Employment Tribunal held that whilst Mr McClung’s belief was genuinely held, it was not a philosophical belief within the meaning of the EA2010. Specifically, the Employment Tribunal acknowledged that Mr McClung clearly derived enjoyment from his support of Rangers, but his support had “no larger consequences for humanity as a whole, nothing underpinning it beyond a desire for a team to do well/win and no impact on how people lived their life.” As such, Mr McClung’s belief did not satisfy the remaining four criteria.
Takeaways
Although many football fans may disagree that football is not a philosophical belief, this case demonstrates that not every set of beliefs (however genuinely held) will be protected under employment legislation.
This is, however, an evolving area of law, with the Employment Tribunal upholding a claim in 2020 that ethical veganism could amount to a philosophical belief for the purposes of EA2010. Unlike in the McClung case discussed above, the Employment Tribunal found it “easy to conclude” that ethical veganism satisfied the five factors described above, in part because “it is founded upon a longstanding tradition recognising the moral consequences of non-human animal sentience which has been upheld by both religious and atheists alike”.
As a matter of good practice, employers should therefore encourage and support teams to treat each other with respect, regardless of whether individuals’ beliefs are protected under employment legislation or not.
