By Roger Ellis, Principal Lawyer
Background
Dr David Miller was employed by the University of Bristol as a Professor of Political Sociology. In February 2021, he made a number of public statements expressing his anti-Zionist views, including comments about Zionism, Israel and Jewish student groups. Following complaints and a disciplinary process, the university concluded that aspects of his conduct amounted to gross misconduct and summarily dismissed him in October 2021.
Dr Miller brought claims for direct discrimination because of philosophical belief, harassment, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. He argued that his belief that political Zionism is inherently racist, imperialistic and colonial, and should therefore be opposed, was protected under the Equality Act 2010 and that the university had dismissed him because of the way he expressed that belief. The Employment Tribunal agreed that his anti-Zionist beliefs were protected philosophical beliefs and found that his dismissal and the rejection of his appeal were discriminatory, unfair and wrongful. The University of Bristol appealed, while Dr Miller cross-appealed aspects of the Tribunal’s decision.
Outcome
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) largely upheld the Employment Tribunal’s findings. It agreed that Dr Miller’s beliefs qualified for protection under the Equality Act 2010 and that his dismissal was influenced, at least in part, by his expression of those protected beliefs. The EAT found that the university’s decision to dismiss him amounted to direct discrimination and that the dismissal was also unfair and wrongful.
The EAT accepted that the university had legitimate concerns about comments Dr Miller made about students and student groups. However, it agreed with the Tribunal that dismissal was a disproportionate response and that less severe sanctions, such as a warning, could have been considered. The EAT also upheld the Tribunal’s finding that compensation for unfair dismissal should be reduced by 50% to reflect Dr Miller’s contributory conduct.
The university succeeded on only one limited ground of appeal. The EAT found that the Tribunal had not adequately explained its conclusion that there was a 30% chance Dr Miller would have been fairly dismissed in 2023 because of later social media posts. That issue was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration as part of the remedy proceedings.
Comments / Key takeaways
This decision reinforces the principle that controversial or unpopular political and philosophical beliefs may still attract protection under the Equality Act 2010 where they satisfy the established legal tests. The EAT emphasised that freedom of expression, particularly in relation to political debate and academic discourse, remains an important consideration when assessing disciplinary action taken against employees.
The judgment also highlights the need for employers, particularly universities and other institutions with free speech obligations, to distinguish between a protected belief and the manner in which that belief is expressed. While employers may be entitled to take action where comments about colleagues, students or third parties are inappropriate, any disciplinary response must be proportionate and carefully balanced against employees’ rights to freedom of belief and expression.
University of Bristol v Dr David Miller [2026] EAT 84
