The summary below is that provided in the judgment:

The claimant was summarily dismissed for the stated reason of gross misconduct. He brought complaints in the Employment Tribunal of (i) direct philosophical belief discrimination contrary to sections 10 and 13 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”); (ii) harassment related to belief contrary to section 26 EqA; (iii) unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”); and (iv) wrongful dismissal at common law.
The Tribunal concluded that the claimant was dismissed because of comments made by him on three occasions during February 2021 in which, amongst other matters, he expressed protected philosophical beliefs. The decision to dismiss the claimant and the refusal of his appeal against that dismissal were each found to be unlawful acts of direct discrimination. The dismissal was held to be unfair, and wrongful. The Tribunal determined, however, that the basic and compensatory awards in the unfair dismissal complaint should each be reduced by 50%. It further concluded that there was a 30% chance that the claimant would have been dismissed fairly and in non-discriminatory circumstances by October 2023 because of further comments made by him in August 2023. It reserved all other decisions on remedy to a further hearing. The Tribunal dismissed a complaint that the employer’s investigating officer had harassed the claimant for a reason related to his beliefs by recommending that disciplinary proceedings be commenced against him. It also dismissed a complaint that the employer had directly discriminated against the claimant by finding him guilty of any misconduct.

The employer advanced multiple grounds of appeal against the findings of liability. It also submitted that the reduction of compensation for contributory fault should have been 100% in both the unfair dismissal and discrimination complaints and that the Tribunal erred or failed to give adequate reasons for its conclusion that there was a 30% chance that the claimant’s employment would have ended lawfully in any event by October 2023. The claimant cross appealed against (a) the rejection of his complaint that it was an act of direct discrimination by the appellant to find him guilty of any misconduct; (b) the dismissal of his harassment complaint; and (c) the Tribunal’s conclusions on reduction of compensation in the unfair dismissal complaint on the basis of contributory fault.

Held:

(1) The Tribunal had not erred in any of its conclusions on liability, or in deciding that the basic and compensatory awards in the unfair dismissal complaint should each be reduced by 50%. It had not yet made any appealable decision about remedy in the discrimination complaint. (2) The Tribunal had not sufficiently explained the basis for its conclusion that there was a 30% chance that the claimant’s employment would have ended lawfully in any event by October 2023. (3) The Tribunal had not erred (a) in rejecting the complaint that it was an act of direct discrimination for the employer to find the claimant guilty of any misconduct; (b) in dismissing the complaint of harassment; and (c) in reducing compensation in the unfair dismissal complaint on the basis of contributory fault.