Division in the workplace: managing conflict and maintaining culture

We are currently seeing an increasing polarisation of views across society, which is unsurprisingly being reflected in our workplaces. Each office presents a unique mix of people from different backgrounds and generations with a wide range of views and opinions. Coupled with an international backlash against “wokeism” meaning views that may previously have been considered unacceptable to express (particularly in the workplace) are no longer considered so, employers are operating in a particularly challenging social climate. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that we have seen an increase in high-profile “protected belief” cases. 

In the UK, employees are protected from discrimination on the grounds that they hold a “protected belief”. For a belief to be protected under the Equality Act 2010 it must be capable of respect in a democratic society, which recent cases have decided is a relatively low bar to meet. This represents a change to the previous direction of travel, which saw many beliefs failing to meet the “respect in a democratic society” test, perhaps reflecting the wider societal backlash against “wokeism” mentioned above. To qualify for protection under the Equality Act 2010, the belief must also: 

• be genuinely held;
• be more than an opinion;
• relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; and
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

For most employers, refraining from discriminating against an employee simply because they hold a protected belief should be relatively straightforward. The difficulties tend to arise where an employer takes action against an employee because of the way they express or manifest a protected belief, particularly when this has an impact on other employees or the reputation, values or culture of the company. 

Case examples

Recent high-profile cases relating to protected beliefs have focused on gender critical beliefs, which is a belief that biological sex is important, immutable and is not to be conflated with gender identity. Many who hold this view say that it stems from a fear that recognising trans women (i.e. those born male who now identify as female) as women will result in an erosion of women’s rights. This gives rise to some unique challenges in employment law, as one group’s rights must be balanced against another’s. 

See below brief summaries of a few of these key cases:

Forstater v CGD Europe and others [2021]

• Maya Forstater (a tax expert) expressed gender critical views on her personal Twitter (now X) account, including during the government’s consultation on reforms to the Gender Recognition Act.
• Several of her colleagues complained about the tweets and CGD Europe subsequently decided not to renew Ms Forstater’s fellowship.
• The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that Ms Forstater’s gender critical beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010 and that CGD’s decision not to renew Ms Forstater’s contract was motivated by those beliefs.

Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd & Others [2024]

• Allison Bailey was a barrister at Garden Court Chambers (GCC), which had a particular focus on fighting inequality and protecting human rights.
• Stonewall (a LGBTQ+ rights charity) ran a Diversity Champions Scheme of which GCC was a member.
• Ms Bailey held gender critical beliefs, including that Stonewall’s stance on gender identity undermined the rights of women and lesbians.
• Ms Bailey expressed those beliefs by email to her colleagues and later on her Twitter account.
• The tweets resulted in complaints from other barristers of GCC as well as external parties.
• This prompted GCC to begin an investigation into Ms Bailey. It posted a tweet confirming that that was the action it had decided to take.
• Through its investigation, GCC found that two of Ms Bailey’s tweets were likely to breach professional standards.
• The Tribunal found that GCC’s tweet and its findings regarding Ms Bailey’s breach of professional standards amounted to discrimination on the grounds of a protected belief. The EAT found no error of law in the Tribunal’s decision. 

Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025]

• Kristie Higgs performed a pastoral role at Farmor’s School and made criticisms of LGBT education, same-sex marriage and gender identity on her personal Facebook account.
• A parent of a child at the school made a complaint, which triggered an internal investigation.
• Mrs Higgs was subsequently dismissed.
• The Court of Appeal held that the dismissal amounted to direct discrimination on the basis of Mrs Higgs’ protected belief.

What should employers be doing?

The above cases resulted in the courts and tribunals applying complex legal analyses to determine whether it was (i) the employee’s belief that caused their employer to dismiss them (or subject them to other less favourable treatment), or (ii) the way they had gone about expressing that belief and whether that expression was justified. There has been a lot of commentary around this distinction and how tribunals should now approach protected belief cases, but we will focus on the practical steps employers can take to avoid differences of opinion escalating into more significant employee disputes.

• The first key piece of advice to employers is to avoid making snap decisions in reaction to an employee’s expression or manifestation of a view or belief, no matter how controversial they think it to be. HR teams and managers should take a step back - and seek advice where necessary – before determining what (if any) action to take. Similarly, employers should avoid making judgments about whether a particular belief is right or wrong (noting the considerations set out in the final paragraph below).
• The three cases above all involved the employee’s expression of their views on social media. Accordingly, employers should consider implementing a social media policy to set expectations as to what kind of online posts/comments will and will not be acceptable, particularly when it comes to any account that connects the employee to their employer and could have an impact on the reputation of the business, e.g. LinkedIn.
• Where there are groups of employees with opposing beliefs, employers should treat them even-handedly in terms of how they “police” their actions in the workplace and support any campaigns/initiatives they wish to run. Employers should (and should be seen to) offer balanced support and funding to internal networks which may on the face of it have conflicting agendas.
• Up to date diversity and inclusion training, which specifically covers how to handle conflicting views in the workplace, should be rolled-out to all employees.
• Encouraging an open culture in which employees feel comfortable discussing conflicting views and opinions in a respectful way without judgment will help to avoid certain groups feeling ostracised and resentful. It should also go some way to preventing disputes escalating. This will require managers to lead by example, which will in turn likely require training to equip managers with the right people skills to do this effectively. 

Whilst the above suggestions help manage the employment law risks associated with conflicting beliefs in the workplace, sometimes an employer may have to weigh up those risks against the damage to their company culture, brand or reputation if they act in a certain way or are seen to condone or support actions or views that contradict the organisation’s values. Employers should therefore be clear on what those values are, as, notwithstanding the above advice, it may not always be the right business decision for all employers to remain neutral when it comes to certain topics.

For advice on how best to handle a particular situation or support in delivering training or updating policies, please do not hesitate to get in touch.