Skip to content
City PM
  • Germany
  • France
  • Europe
  • Markets
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • DE
  • Germany
  • France
  • Europe
  • Markets
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • DE
Thursday 14 July 2016 5:02 am

The legal implications of airing your views at work

By: Will Railton

Add as a preferred source on Google

Rarely has a public issue proved as divisive as Brexit. The strength of opinion of individuals supporting either Remain or Leave has been overwhelming, and tensions across the country are still running high.

Workplace discussion on political matters will continue to rage over the coming months, but could heated debates lead to discrimination claims?

What is discrimination?

Direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 is, put simply, when an employee is treated less favourably than another employee (real or hypothetical) due to a “protected characteristic”. The Act sets out nine protected characteristics on which employees cannot be discriminated against. Political views could potentially be included under the protected characteristic of religion or belief.

Read more: Red roses and thorny issues: The rights of office romance

So there needs to be both a protected characteristic (political view), and less favourable treatment because of that characteristic (harassment). The less favourable treatment is an employee being treated differently to colleagues because of how they voted. If a conversation were to get heated and violated an employee’s dignity or created a hostile, offensive or intimidating environment, that is likely to constitute harassment.

Does a political view constitute a “religion or belief”?

Employment tribunals have heard many high-profile cases on whether a political view can constitute a religion or belief. The consensus is that political beliefs can be sufficient, but subject to a number of factors. The primary one is that the political beliefs must reflect a “deeper philosophical viewpoint”, as opposed to a simple political opinion.

In the example of the EU referendum, it is likely that, if an individual simply took into account the respective arguments and came to the conclusion to vote Remain or Leave, it would not constitute a religion or belief, and therefore could not be discrimination. However, if their decision to vote was based on a more fundamental viewpoint, this could qualify.

It could be argued that a Remain vote was based on the political principle of freedom of movement of people or forming a closer bond with Europe. Conversely, a vote to Leave could be based on deeper beliefs on the sovereignty of the UK, or in restricting immigration. No matter what these underlying reasons are, it is clear that they must be genuinely held as a “deeper philosophical viewpoint” to fall under the protection of the Equality Act.

If workplace political arguments do occur, can an employer be liable? And what can employers do to prevent this?

The doctrine of “vicarious liability” states that an employer is liable for the acts of its employees if they are carried out “in the course of employment”. If the discriminatory acts of one employee towards another took place in the workplace and during work hours, it is likely they will be treated as having been committed by the employer. The only defence an employer could raise is if they show they took “all reasonable steps” to prevent the employee from doing the discriminatory act.

Read more: How to make sure your staff training courses titillate

It is sensible for an employer to take such “steps”. Have a written equality policy. Declare a commitment to workplace equality and state that discrimination is not condoned. Provide staff with equality training if it is needed. Investigate incidents thoroughly, take appropriate disciplinary action, and make an internal statement about the referendum outcome, if there is reason to believe there could be problems among the workforce.

If an employer was unable to rely on this defence to vicarious liability, and an employment tribunal found that discrimination had taken place, the penalties can be wide ranging, including unlimited compensation. Aside from financial awards against an employer, which can be substantial, tribunal claims can also result in significant reputational damage and have a negative impact when tendering for contracts.

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • X
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp
  • Email

Similarly tagged content:

Sections

  • Jobs and Money

Categories

  • Personal Development

Trending Articles

  • Citroën 2CV returns as a £13,000 electric car, and the timing is no accident

  • The former African gold miner taking on the billionaire Issa brothers

  • Barclays and Lloyds back calls to digitalise UK markets and unlock £33bn boost

  • Wimbledon: HMRC set to slap Sinner and Noskova with £1.6m tax bill

  • Music tycoon Simon Cowell sued by prominent City lawyer

More from City PM

  • It’s time to scrap the Equality Act

    Opinion
    LONDON, ENGLAND - JANUARY 19: A statue of the Scales of Justice stands above the Old Bailey on January 19, 2021 in London, England. Criminal watchdogs representing England and Wales have expressed concern over the backlog of cases, caused by the Coronavirus pandemic. Figures have revealed that the backlog of unheard cases in the crown courts has reached 54,000. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)
  • World Cup office sweepstakes could leave employers facing legal red cards

    Legal
    The Club World Cup kicks off this evening (well, at 1am tomorrow morning) with 32 teams looking to win a trophy few really wanted to fight for a couple of months ago.
  • Fideres Study Finds TfL Fare Zones Disproportionately Burden Ethnic Minority Commuters

    Business Wire
  • 4chan ridicules Ofcom again as watchdog chases unpaid £520k fine

    Tech
    Ofcom fines 4chan in regulatory action, highlighting platforms compliance issues and internet governance challenges.
  • On this day in 1940: Happy birthday Ken Clarke

    Opinion
    GettyImages 3261869 showcasing a significant moment in news, emphasizing key details relevant to the articles context.
  • ‘Number 10 North’ is no more than a gimmick

    Opinion
    Andy Burnham speaking at a press conference, wearing a suit and tie, addressing current political issues in Manchester.
  • What will markets make of the new chair of the Fed?

    Opinion
    Kevin Warsh, former Federal Reserve governor, speaking at a business conference, discussing economic policies.
  • ‘Anti-growth’: Labour blocks Canada skyscraper plans

    London
    Historic Tower of London under clear blue sky, showcasing iconic medieval architecture and stone walls, attracting tourist...

City PM — European politics, business and analysis.

Europe

  • Germany
  • France
  • Europe
  • UK & Ireland

Topics

  • Business
  • Markets
  • AI
  • Technology
  • Opinion
  • Energy

More

  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Fintech
  • Legal
  • Sport
  • Life

Company

  • About City PM
  • Editorial Policy
  • Corrections
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
© 2026 City PM · Published by CityPM Media, Bahnhofstrasse 65, 8001 Zürich, Switzerland
About · Editorial Policy · Corrections · Contact · Privacy · Facebook