Dr David Miller v University of Bristol — 2024

The tribunal held that Dr Miller's anti-Zionist beliefs, as pleaded, were a protected philosophical belief under s.10 EqA 2010 at the material times. Applying Grainger and Forstater, it found the belief was genuinely held, went beyond a mere opinion, was sufficiently coherent and substantial, and was not excluded by the final Grainger criterion.

The indirect discrimination claim was withdrawn at the start of the hearing. On the February 2021 disciplinary process, the tribunal accepted that Dr Miller's comments about Bristol JSoc, UJS and Zionism manifested that protected belief. It held that the dismissal on 1 October 2021 and the rejection of the appeal on 23 February 2022 were direct discrimination because of that manifestation, and that the dismissal was also unfair under s.98 ERA 1996. It also upheld wrongful dismissal because the tribunal found no repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal without notice.

The tribunal dismissed the separate direct discrimination challenge to Professor Norman's finding of misconduct in relation to the February 2021 comments, holding that a disciplinary finding short of dismissal was proportionate on the evidence. It also dismissed the claims about the University's response to media coverage, the failure to publish the first McColgan report and outcome, and the alleged failure to defend Dr Miller in 2019-2021, finding those decisions were driven by process, confidentiality, or procedural differences with the comparator case involving Professor Greer rather than by protected belief.

The pre-dismissal harassment allegation based on the CRP's 12 June 2020 recommendation to move the student complaint into Ordinance 28 would, on the tribunal's analysis, have succeeded on the merits, but it was out of time and the tribunal refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis. The earlier allegation that the student complaint was allowed to proceed to the CRP was dismissed because progression under the student complaints procedure was automatic and not related to the claimant's belief.

This was a liability-only hearing. The tribunal said any basic and compensatory awards for unfair dismissal would be reduced by 50% for contributory fault, and it found a 30% chance that, had Dr Miller remained employed, the University would fairly have dismissed him about two months after his August 2023 social media posts. No monetary award was determined in this judgment.