Anti-Zionism workplace ruling could be crucial

An employment tribunal has reaffirmed that anti-Zionism is a “protected characteristic” under equality legislation in relation to the workplace. It then denied protection to two Muslim women disciplined by an Israel-supporting bank for opposing its genocide-friendly investments.

The finding reconfirms the landmark decision of a 2024 tribunal that sacked Bristol professor David Miller’s anti-Zionism is protected by anti-discrimination workplace law. It also notably rejected the claim of the Israel lobby’s so-called ‘IHRA definition of antisemitism’, which Lloyds Bank tried to invoke.

Anti-Zionism is a principled stance

However, the tribunal judges decided that the two women’s anti-Zionism had not yet reached the level of a “philosophical belief” at the time they sent messages to colleagues demanding that Lloyds stop investing in companies profiting from Israel’s genocide. Instead, they said that at that point it was “political opinion” not protected by legislation. They hold it as philosophical belief now, the judges ruled, so they would have upheld their claim if the disciplinary action happened now. The judges strongly criticised Lloyds Bank’s actions but rejected the women’s claim.

Under equality legislation, according to mediator Acas, a “philosophical belief” must be “all of the following”:

• genuinely held
• not just an opinion or point of view based on current information
• about a significant aspect of human life and behaviour
• clear, consistent, serious and important
• acceptable in a democratic society – it must respect other people’s fundamental rights

The European Legal Support Centre, which supported the two women’s case, said that in spite of the adverse outcome the judgment was positive:

This judgment adds to the growing body of cases confirming that anti-Zionism is capable of amounting to a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. While the claims did not succeed on the particular facts, the Tribunal made clear that beliefs supporting Palestinian rights can be worthy of respect in a democratic society, and that weaponisation of disciplinary action may give rise to unlawful discrimination.

Ms Sohail and Mrs Khalid should be recognised for their principled decision to pursue this case, which has helped clarify the law and strengthen protections for workers who seek to express deeply held beliefs in the workplace.

The so-called ‘IHRA working definition of antisemitism’ has been rejected even by its author as unfit for purpose. It has been rejected by legal experts, including Jewish experts, as legally useless for anything but attacking critics of Israel. It is frequently presented as the gold standard and used to protect Israel from criticism.

Featured image via the Canary