London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Garrett [2026] EAT 77

By Jo Seery, Professional Support Lawyer

Background

Mr Garrett, who is white British, was employed by the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust as an emergency ambulance crew member from 2015. In 2020, there were two keys’ incidents. The first concerned a heated argument Mr Garrett had with a Black colleague on 30 January 2020 during which he referred to his colleague as a “roadman” The second, occurred in June 2020 regarding a discussion with a colleague about race and the Black Lives Matter movement. The discussion was overheard by another colleague during which Mr Garrette rejected the concept of “systemic racism” (also known as critical race theory that racism is embedded in society including its legal systems and policies). In particular, he referred to his non-white friends being successful and that people’s higher incarceration rates and lower education levels were due to their own actions. Both the colleague with whom he had a heated conversation and the one who overheard the discussion about the Black Lives Matter movement complained.

The Trust carried out an investigation and upheld the complaints. As a result, Mr Garrett was issued with a final written warning for the offensive manner in which he had acted and required to complete unconscious bias training, a black allyship workshop and a written reflective practice on acceptable workplace language and systemic racism.

He brought claims in the Employment Tribunal amongst other things alleging direct discrimination on the ground’s philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.

The Tribunal (by a majority) found that Mr Garrett held a belief that “all people should be treated with respect because all people are part of the same race (the “treatment belief”) and that this was a protected philosophical belief which met the Grainger test (See box). It then found that the Trust had failed to conduct an adequate investigation by not interviewing the person with whom he was in discussion with, had not taken into account Mr Garretts own evidence and by requiring him to carry out a reflective practice he had been subject to less favourable treatment because of his rejection of critical race theory (the “no-systemic racism belief”) which was a manifestation of his treatment belief.  It was on that basis that Mr Garrett’s claims for belief discrimination succeeded.

The Trust appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on the grounds that the tribunal had erred in the following respects:

• finding that the no-systemic racism belief was a manifestation of the treatment belief.
• failing to consider how a comparator would have been treated in respect of the investigation,
• failing to engage with the Trusts explanation that the evidence relied on by Mr Garrett lacked rigour; and
• concluding that the requirement to carry out a reflective written practice was because of his rejection of critical race theory and failing to consider if the reason was because of the objectionable manner in which the claimant had expressed himself.

Region or belief

1. 10 of the Equality Act 2010 defines religion or belief. S. 10(2) provides that “Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief”.

Direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief must be interpreted as encompassing protection both for holding a protected belief and outwardly manifesting that belief by expressing views relating to that belief in accordance with Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Case law (Eweida) has held that in order to establish less treatment because of the manifestation of a belief it must be intimately linked to the religion or belief. Where the expression of the belief offends others, the employer is required to act proportionality.

The employer appealed.

What the EAT decided

The EAT allowed the appeal and overturned the findings of discrimination.

It held that the tribunal had erred in concluding that his rejection of critical theory was a manifestation of his treatment belief. The way in which the tribunal had characterised critical race theory which it said Mr Garrett had rejected did not mean that it was undeniably linked to his treatment belief - that all people should be treated with respect because of all people are part of the same race. In particular, a person holding that same treatment belief could equally believe in critical race theory. The EAT also found that the rejection of critical race theory was not a manifestation of his treatment belief because the treatment belief was a belief in what ought to happen (a normative belief) and the rejection of critical race theory was based on a belief of what exists (a descriptive belief).

Although this meant that the claims for belief discrimination failed the Tribunal went on to make findings in respect of them. As regards the failure to interview the person with whom Mr Garrett was discussing his views as part of the investigation, the EAT held that the tribunal did not consider whether the Trust would have carried out the interview in the case of a hypothetical comparator i.e. where some other racially charged statement had been made. t therefore found that the failure to carry out the interview was not because of the manifestation of his belief.

As regards, the finding that the failure to take into account Mr Garretts evidence was because of a manifestation of his belief, the EAT found that the Trust considered that the evidence lacked rigour (being You tube videos and internet articles). The tribunal had therefore erred in finding that the Trust held not put forward a non-discriminatory explanation for not taking into account Mr Garretts own evidence.

The EAT also considered that the direction to carry out a written reflective practice was because of the offensive manner in which he acted towards his colleagues and not because of the manifestation of his belief.

In upholding the Trusts appeal the EAT quashed the Tribunals’ decision....

Comment

The case is a reminder of the difficulty in establishing that a worker has been discriminated against because of the manifestation of their belief.

When bringing a claim of discrimination because of the manifestation of a belief a worker has to first establish that the expression of a worker’s belief is intimately linked to a religious or philosophical belief. In this case the tribunal had made an error when concluding that the claimant’s opposition to critical race theory was a manifestation of his equal treatment belief - that “we are all one race” where race meant “the human race.”  This left open the possibility that another person could equally have expressed the treatment belief in support of critical race theory.

Second, even where a tribunal finds that the worker has a manifestation of belief claim it is open for the employer to argue that the treatment is not discriminatory because of the manifestation belief. In particular there is a fine line between less favourable treatment because of the manifestation of belief and treatment which the employer argues is a proportionate response to the objectionable way in which that belief had been expressed.

Where a worker is dismissed because of a protected belief this will generally constitute unlawful direct discrimination

In this case the tribunal did not determine that rejection of critical race theory was itself a protected belief. This is in contrast to the tribunal case of Corby v ACAS which held that a claimant’s opposition to critical race was a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010.