The next step

The tribunal's ruling

[Weblink]

The EAT’s ruling in the case referred to

[Weblink]

Is supporting a football club a philosophical belief?

Football crazy

Mr McClung (M) is a lifelong supporter of Glasgow Rangers (G) football club. For over 40 years, he has attended hundreds of matches and spent most of his disposable income on this activity.

He is deeply fond of the many memories that he has created with his father and son supporting G and, in recognition of his devotion, the football club sends him a birthday card every year. M describes his support of G as “a way of life”.

Rival team

Between January and June 2019, M carried out work as a subcontractor for Doosan Babcock (D) - a company which provides construction and servicing in the energy sector.

However, M believed that he was not offered any subsequent work at D because the manager there was a staunch Celtic fan - one of G’s rivals.

Tribunal claim

M issued a discrimination claim at the tribunal, arguing that his support of G was a philosophical belief worthy of protection under the Equality Act 2010(the Act) . In his evidence, M told the tribunal that supporting G was as important to him “as it was for Christians to attend church” .

When considering cases which involve arguments about philosophical beliefs , the tribunal must apply a strict test. In order to meet the threshold and gain protection of the Act , the belief must:

• be genuinely held
• not be an opinion or a viewpoint
• be a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• have a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society; and
• not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Test not met

The tribunal agreed that M’s lifelong support of G was genuinely held, but ruled that it didn’t meet any of the other tests which were laid down by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Grainger v Nicholson 2010 (see The next step ).

It concluded that M’s support of GR was a “lifestyle choice”, rather than a philosophical belief protected by the Act and, thus, his discrimination claim failed (see The next step ).

Tip. Although this case isn’t binding on other tribunals, it indicates that supporting a football team is unlikely to ever amount to a philosophical belief, regardless of how long someone has supported a particular team and/or how much of their life and income they devote to it. So, claims of this nature are most likely always going to fail.

Tip. However, this case serves as a good reminder that discrimination claims can be brought against you by subcontractors - an individual does not have to be your employee to avail themselves of the protection of the Act .

For the EAT’s ruling in the case referred to and for the tribunal’s ruling in this case, visit https://www.tips-and-advice.co.uk , Download Zone, year 24, issue 17.