Advising Employers and Employees on Accusations and Claims Relating to Antisemitism and Islamophobia 

Advising Employers and Employees on Accusations and Claims Relating to Antisemitism and Islamophobia 

Introduction

In today’s workplace environment, issues of antisemitism and Islamophobia are increasingly salient—particularly as commentary on social media (personal or professional) intersects with employment. Employers must navigate a complex landscape: balancing freedom of expression, managing workplace reputation, safeguarding all staff, and ensuring compliance under the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) and related jurisprudence. Employees, meanwhile, need to understand the boundaries of protected belief, permissible speech, and potential disciplinary risk.

This article gives a detailed overview of how employers and employees should approach these matters: definitions, legal context, case law (with emphasis on the landmark David Miller case), and practical steps for managing outspoken employees—especially those with influential personal social-media channels.

1. Definitions: Antisemitism and Islamophobia

1.1 Antisemitism

The most commonly used benchmark in the UK is the working definition published by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA):

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews…” 

Alongside this, the IHRA sets out 11 illustrative examples such as comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of Israel, or drawing upon classic antisemitic tropes about Jewish power.

The UK Government formally adopted the IHRA definition in December 2016. 

However, it is important to note: the IHRA definition is not legally binding in itself. It is a “working definition” intended as guidance. 

Controversies and limitations

• The definition includes examples involving Israel and Zionism, which means that criticism of Israeli government policy or pro-Palestinian expression may raise issues for employers. The UK Government explicitly said that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic” provided there is no antisemitic intent. House of Commons Library
• Some commentators argue the IHRA definition may have a chilling effect on free speech—particularly commentary on Israel/Palestine—if used as a disciplinary tool.
• Many institutions have adopted the IHRA definition (universities, police forces, public bodies), but its application in the workplace requires careful discrimination/harassment law analysis rather than purely relying on the definition.

1.2 Islamophobia

There is no universally adopted, legally binding definition of Islamophobia in UK employment law. The term generally refers to hostility, prejudice or discrimination directed at Muslims or Islam as a religion. The Muslim Council of Britain states:

“What does the law say about tackling Islamophobia? The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination because of religion or religious or philosophical belief.” Muslim Council of Britain
Recent press reports highlight that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has warned that government proposals to adopt a formal definition may risk freedom of expression and cause legal confusion. The Times

Key points for practice

• Unlike antisemitism, there is no widely accepted “working definition” of Islamophobia embedded in statute or case law.
• Employers should rely on more general legal protections (religion/religious belief under EA 2010) and recognised internal policy rather than assuming a blanket definition of “Islamophobia”.
• The focus remains on discrimination, harassment or victimisation of Muslims (or those perceived as Muslim) rather than invoking a “definition of Islamophobia” alone.

2. Legal Framework and Case Law

2.1 The statutory basis

Under the Equality Act 2010:

• “Religion” and “belief” are protected characteristics. Acas+1
• It is unlawful to subject a person to direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment or victimisation because of religion or belief. CIPD
• For the “belief” element, the employment tribunal must assess whether a belief qualifies under criteria derived from the case of Grainger Plc v Nicholson (2010) among others (e.g., must be genuinely held; must be a weighty belief; must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, coherence and importance; must be worthy of respect in a democratic society; must not conflict with human dignity, etc.).

2.2 Relevant case law

Below are key cases relevant to antisemitism, Islamophobia, religion or belief discrimination, and employer obligations.

• **Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] IRLR 434 (EAT) – Muslim employee and face‐covering issue
  A support worker claimed constructive dismissal and religious discrimination when her employer refused her request to wear the niqab covering face except eyes, in a school setting. The tribunal dismissed claims of direct and indirect discrimination but found victimisation for complaint. Wikipedia+1
  Lesson: The case emphasises that employers must consider whether religious practice is protected and compatible with job role, but dismissal may yet be fair if job requirements are incompatible.
• **Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 932 – Sunday work for a Christian
  Mr Copsey refused to work Sundays, citing religious belief. The employer offered alternative roles and a redundancy package; the Court of Appeal held dismissal was fair because he had refused reasonable accommodations. Wikipedia+1
  Lesson: Even with a protected belief, there is a legitimate aim for the employer (business needs) and reasonable accommodation may not always render dismissal unlawful.
• **Miller v University of Bristol [ET 1400780/2022] – Anti-Zionist belief and unfair dismissal
  This case is central to the current landscape and deserves detailed review (see section 3).
  Key points:
  • The Employment Tribunal found that Prof Miller’s anti-Zionist belief qualified as a protected philosophical belief under EA 2010. 
  • It therefore held his dismissal for gross misconduct (related to public commentary on Israel/Palestine) was discriminatory. 
  • The Tribunal also considered the use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in the context of university disciplinary procedures. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary+1
  • The University’s appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) raised concern that the decision did not sufficiently consider the rights of Jewish students. The Jewish Chronicle
• Additional contemporary cases
  While there are fewer cases specifically framed as “anti-Muslim discrimination / Islamophobia” in employment, the general principles of religion/belief discrimination apply. For example, the case of “Islam v Loomis UK Ltd” (religion or belief discrimination under EA 2010) emphasises the need for substantive evidence linking the characteristic to treatment. 

2.3 Key legal take-aways for employers and employees

• Simply holding a belief—even a controversial one—is not in itself unlawful. The question is whether the belief is protected (and meets the Grainger criteria) and whether the employer treats the individual adversely because of it.
• Employers must distinguish between the belief (which may be protected) and its manifestation (which may be subject to disciplinary action). According to the Court of Appeal in Higgs v Farmor’s School, if the view is protected then to act lawfully the employer must show the action was because of how the view was expressed (its manifestation) and that the decision was proportionate. www.hoganlovells.com
• For discrimination/harassment claims, the employer must ensure they are not acting because of a protected characteristic (religion or belief) – but they may lawfully take action where conduct (rather than belief) is unacceptable, provided it is handled fairly and proportionately.
• When dealing with claims of harassment or victimisation by or of employees, employers have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent such behaviour, to investigate complaints, and to act appropriately. Acas+1
• On antisemitism specifically, use of the IHRA definition may be helpful as a policy tool and awareness-raising mechanism, but it does not itself override employment law/Equality Act analysis. Its examples should be used in context and with caution.
• On Islamophobia, while there is no singular definition, the employer should still have robust policies addressing religious harassment and discrimination and treat “anti-Muslim” behaviour as unacceptable.

3. The David Miller Case – Implications for Employers and Employees

The case of Prof David Miller (often cited simply as “Miller v University of Bristol”) is a focal point for how belief, expression, and disciplinary action interplay in the context of sensitive commentary on Israel/Palestine, Judaism, and free speech in the workplace.

3.1 Facts and judgment summary

• Prof Miller was appointed by the University of Bristol in 2018 as Professor of Political Sociology. Law and Religion UK
• He delivered a lecture in 2019 in which he identified Zionism as one of five “pillars” driving Islamophobia in Britain; a complaint was made by students and the charity Community Security Trust alleged antisemitic behaviour. An internal investigation concluded there was no formal case to answer. Law and Religion UK+1
• In February 2021, Prof Miller sent an email to the student newspaper in which he said: “Zionism is and always has been a racist, violent, imperialist ideology premised on ethnic cleansing.” He further characterised the university’s Jewish Society as an “Israel lobby group” and part of “manufactured hysteria.” Courts and Tribunals Judiciary+1
• The University dismissed him in October 2021 for gross misconduct, citing failure to meet required professional standards of behaviour. Excello Law
• In February 2024 (published October 2024) the Employment Tribunal held that Prof Miller’s belief in the ideological critique of Zionism qualified as a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 and that his dismissal was discriminatory and unfair. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary+1
• Importantly, the Tribunal found that while his comments were “extraordinary and ill-judged” they did not amount to antisemitism, and that his belief was “worthy of respect in a democratic society”. Middle East Eye+1
• The University is appealing the decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal; one key ground is that the tribunal “failed to take into account the rights of others” (e.g., Jewish students) and the need to balance freedom of belief with duties of the employer. The Jewish Chronicle

3.2 Key implications for employers

• Belief is protected, but manifestation may still be subject to employer discipline. Even though Prof Miller’s belief qualified for protection, the question of how it was manifested in his behaviour and communications (including social media/email) remained relevant. Employers must distinguish carefully between protected belief and possible misconduct in its expression.
• Disciplinary processes need to be robust, fair and proportionate. The judgment emphasises the employer should have considered less intrusive measures (warnings) before dismissal. In this case the Tribunal held that dismissal was unfair because less severe sanction may have been appropriate. 
• Consideration of broader rights and interests is essential. The University’s appeal hinges in part on the need for the employer to consider impact on students and staff, especially where the commentary touches on protected groups. While academic freedom is a factor, the employer also has a duty of care to all members of the institution. Employers in other sectors must similarly consider the impact of disruptive or inflammatory expression.
• Use of the IHRA definition as part of policy. The Tribunal in Miller engaged with the IHRA definition (the University had adopted it) to assess whether his comments were antisemitic. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary Employers should use definitions like IHRA within policy design but not treat them as a substitute for bespoke disciplinary analysis.
• Risk of precedent in the employment context. While the judgment is first instance (so not binding in the sense of higher‐court precedent), it is “powerful” and likely to influence employer practice on belief/manifestation and speech issues. Excello Law

3.3 Key implications for employees

• Employees should be aware that a strongly held belief (including controversial ones) can be protected. What matters is whether the belief meets the statutory criteria and how it is expressed.
• However, holding a protected belief does not give carte blanche to behave inappropriately. Public social media commentary, emails, lectures and other manifestations are still subject to expected standards of behaviour in the employment context.
• When disciplinary action is initiated, the employee should ensure that the employer is correctly distinguishing between the belief and its manifestation, and that the employer has followed a fair process including considering less intrusive sanctions.
• If the employer uses internal definitions (such as IHRA), the employee should consider how these were applied, whether there was clarity in policy, and whether the employer considered the employee’s rights to free speech and expression as well as the rights of others.

4. Advising Employers: Managing Outspoken Employees (Including Personal Social-Media Channels)

In many organisations, employees maintain personal social media accounts or public profiles, and may express views that attract attention (internal or external). Some of these views may touch on religion, political causes, or identity issues. Here are practical steps and considerations:

4.1 Review and update policy framework

• Ensure you have a clear social media policy that sets out expectations for employees’ personal expression insofar as it may impact the employer’s reputation, relationships with stakeholders, or the workplace environment.
• Ensure your anti-harassment/anti-discrimination policy covers religious and belief discrimination, including staff’s personal commentary (online/off-duty) that may create a hostile work environment for colleagues.
• Incorporate definitions and governance around antisemitism (e.g., IHRA) and religious harassment generally, but emphasise that such definitions are tools for guidance and not automatic disciplinary triggers.
• Train managers and HR to recognise when a personal belief expression may trigger workplace issues (harassment of colleagues, reputational risk, conflict with workplace values) and what process should be followed.

4.2 Proactive monitoring and risk assessment

• Conduct risk assessments where employees have public platforms (e.g., influencers, thought leaders, those with large followings). Ask: does the employee’s public commentary risk impacts in work (e.g., alienating clients, causing distress among colleagues, being characterised as extremist or hateful)?
• Maintain regular dialogue with such staff about their external persona and any potential crossover into the workplace. Consider a code of conduct for external commentary when there is a direct tie to the employer (e.g., linked with their role, identifiable as employee of the organisation).
• Employer should be careful about monitoring personal social media—it must respect privacy and fundamental rights (e.g., the right to free expression). Any monitoring should be proportionate and comply with data protection/monitoring policy.

4.3 Responding to concerns/disclosures

• If concerns arise (internal complaint, external media coverage, regulatory scrutiny) the employer should act promptly: suspend or re-assign if appropriate (not automatically dismissal), investigate in line with disciplinary policy.
• The investigation should consider:
  • Is the conduct/personal expression connected to the employee’s role or workplace?
  • Did it create a hostile or intimidating environment for other employees (e.g., Jewish or Muslim employees)?
  • Was the expression outside work and unrelated to the role?
  • Is it hate speech, or protected expression of belief/opinion?
  • Has the employee been given an opportunity to respond / right to representation?
• If disciplinary action is considered, less intrusive alternatives should be assessed (warning, retraining, mediation) before moving to dismissal—especially where the belief may be protected and the manifestation is borderline.

4.4 Protecting other colleagues and the workplace environment

• Employers have a duty to protect employees from harassment or discrimination by colleagues or third parties. 
• When an employee’s public commentary creates internal disruption or distress (e.g., to Jewish or Muslim colleagues), the employer must assess whether the commentary constitutes harassment or creates a hostile environment and respond accordingly.
• Support mechanisms (employee helpline, internal confidential reporting) should be in place to allow staff to raise concerns about antisemitic or Islamophobic behaviour or commentary.

4.5 Communication and reputation management

• When an employee’s commentary attracts public attention, the employer may need to manage reputational risk, media inquiries or stakeholder concerns. A clear decision-making process is essential: oversimplified immediate dismissal risks claims of unfair treatment or discrimination.
• Having ready guidance and training for managers on how to respond is key: those responsible for disciplinary actions should have awareness of belief discrimination law and the particular sensitivities around antisemitism and Islamophobia.

4.6 Practical checklist for employers

• Policy review: Align social media, anti-harassment and religious/belief discrimination policies—update definitions and ensure clarity.
• Training: Provide training for HR and line managers on religion/belief discrimination, antisemitism definitions (e.g., IHRA), Islamophobia awareness, free speech boundaries, and managing public commentary by staff.
• Risk mapping: Identify high-risk roles (public-facing staff, those with personal following) and engage proactively.
• Investigation procedure: Develop clear procedural steps for investigating employee commentary that may affect workplace culture or reputation.
• Documentation: Keep clear records of any external commentary, internal complaints, investigations, outcomes—both for potential legal defence and clarity.
• Balance rights: Recognise that employees have rights to freedom of belief and expression, but those rights are not absolute and may be subject to the employer’s legitimate business interests, duty to protect colleagues, and contractual obligations.
• Support colleagues: Ensure employees from protected groups (e.g., Jewish employees, Muslim employees) have clear routes for raising concerns and that such concerns are treated seriously and sensitively.

5. Advising Employees: How to Navigate Commentary and Claims

For employees who either face accusations of antisemitism/Islamophobia or who express strong views on social media (or otherwise), the following guidance is critical:

5.1 Know your rights and limitations

• Under the Equality Act 2010, your religious belief or philosophical belief may be protected. If you experience less favourable treatment because of that belief, you may have a claim for discrimination. CIPD
• But the manifestation of belief (speech, posts, conduct) can still lead to disciplinary action, if it breaches employer policy, contractual duties (e.g., duty of mutual trust, duty not to bring employer into disrepute), or amounts to harassment of others.
• When expressing views publicly (especially on matters of religion, politics, identity), you should consider the potential impact on your workplace, your role and your contractual obligations (e.g., social media policy, public commentary).
• If you are investigated, ensure you have the right to representation, ask for clarity on the process, and consider whether the employer has treated you fairly and proportionately (i.e., whether dismissal was a last resort or there were alternative sanctions).
• If you believe you have been treated less favourably because of religion or belief (rather than because of misconduct), seek legal advice promptly—time limits apply for claims to Employment Tribunals (generally three months less one day from the act).

5.2 Best practice for employees with public/commentary roles

• If you maintain public social media channels or publish commentary on religion, politics or identity, consider how your role at your employer might tie in or reflect on the organisation (especially if you are identifiable as their employee).
• Where you intend to post controversial commentary, consider whether this could reasonably impact colleagues (for example, if you target or criticise a protected group, or your comments may be taken as discriminatory).
• Consider discussing with your employer whether there is any “moonlighting”, public commentary policy, or whether you might need to declare the role (especially if it links to your employment).
• If you receive complaints about your commentary (internal or external), engage with the process cooperatively, ask for disclosure of evidence, ensure procedural fairness, and seek advice if you believe there is a risk of belief-discrimination claim.
• Maintain records of interactions, posts, and any employer communications; if you later need to bring or defend a claim, you will need to show context, history and mindset.

5.3 If you are accused of antisemitism or Islamophobia

• Do not assume any accusation is automatically correct—seek clarity on the basis of the accusation (what was said, what context, which policy or conduct rule).
• Ask whether the employer has followed its own procedure (investigation, opportunity to respond, considers sanctions options, and gives reasons).
• Consider whether your commentary is principally an expression of belief or political commentary, or whether it includes discriminatory intent, hateful language, or targets a protected group. The difference is crucial for legal assessment.
• If the employer uses an internal definition (such as IHRA) to frame the allegation, assess how that definition was applied: was the process fair? Was it used as a policy tool or as a binding disciplinary rule?
• If you decide to challenge the outcome, consider bringing a claim under the EA 2010 for unfair dismissal, discrimination or harassment—bearing in mind time limits, evidential burden, and the employer’s right to act in the public interest.

6. The IHRA Definition: To What Extent Can It Be Relied On?

As part of advising both employers and employees, it is essential to understand the role, benefits and limitations of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.

6.1 Role and benefits

• The IHRA definition provides a clear, widely recognised framework for understanding antisemitism, including contemporary forms that may not involve explicit hatred of Jews (e.g., collective responsibility of Jews, double standards applied to Israel). Inclusive Employers
• It has been formally adopted by the UK Government (in policy) and many public institutions, which gives it weight in institutional policy and awareness-raising. House of Commons Library
• For employers, adopting the IHRA definition as part of an anti-discrimination/harassment policy helps set expectations, supports training and helps in assessment of complaints that may involve antisemitic conduct.

6.2 Limitations and cautions

• The working definition is non-legally binding. The House of Commons Library states that while the UK Government adopted the definition, it remains a “working definition” rather than creating a new cause of action or explicit statutory duty. House of Commons Library+1
• A number of organisations have cautioned that relying solely on the IHRA definition to determine disciplinary action is fraught: the definition may expand into territory of legitimate political speech (particularly criticism of Israel) and thus may implicate free speech concerns.
• Implementation must still be compatible with employment law: the key questions for an employer will always be whether conduct gives rise to discrimination, harassment or victimisation under EA 2010, and whether disciplinary process is fair and proportionate—not simply whether a definition has been breached.
• There is debate in academic and institutional circles about the reach of the IHRA definition and whether it may stifle legitimate debate about Israel/Palestine. Empirical commentary notes that institutions must preserve academic freedom and fairness in application.
• Some institutions have adopted the IHRA definition “with caveats” to ensure that legitimate criticism of Israel is distinguished from antisemitism. Queen Mary University of London
• In summary: the IHRA definition is a helpful tool, not an automatic disciplinary blueprint.

6.3 Practical advice for the employer

• If adopting the IHRA definition in policy, make clear that it is part of the institution’s commitment to combating antisemitism, and specify how it interacts with internal disciplinary processes, free speech rights and employment law.
• Ensure the policy stipulates that criticism of Israel, Zionism or Israeli government policy is not automatically antisemitic unless it meets the illustrative examples in the definition (for example, using double standards or demonisation, or applying classic antisemitic tropes).
• Train HR and managers to use the definition as a guiding matrix rather than a disciplinary lever: treat each case fact-sensitively, consider expression vs belief, role of context, impact on other staff, and proportionality of response.
• Monitor emerging case law: the Miller case shows that expression of anti-Zionist belief was protected in the employment context—even though it generated significant controversy. Employers should therefore guard against assuming that any commentary touching on Israel/Palestine is automatically misconduct.

7. Islamophobia in the Workplace – Special Considerations

While there is less case law specifically labelling “Islamophobia” in employment settings, employers should treat anti-Muslim behaviour seriously and apply general religion/belief discrimination principles.

7.1 Protection under EA 2010

Muslim employees are protected via “religion or belief”. Employers must guard against direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Muslim Council of Britain+1

Harassment can include unwanted conduct related to a person’s religion (e.g., jokes, derogatory comments, exclusion, hostile environment). The employer has a duty to intervene.

7.2 Emerging issues

• Recent research indicates a marked rise in Islamophobic incidents at work—in the context of international conflict, social media commentary and rising public discourse. 
• Employers should be particularly alert to:
  • Comments on social media that target Muslims or Islam, even if made “outside work”.
  • The manifestation of religious commentary in the workplace (e.g., meetings, emails, public seminars) which may create a hostile environment.
  • Intersectional risks (e.g., employees who are visibly Muslim, have hijabs, are of ethnic minorities) and the employer’s duty to protect them.

7.3 Practical steps

• Ensure policy covers “religion or belief” harassment and gives examples of anti-Muslim conduct, and ensure staff know how to report it.
• Train managers to recognise early signs of religious harassment and to take complaints seriously.
• If an employee expresses controversial views on Islam via social media, employers must assess: is this expression of belief (potentially protected) or does it constitute harassment of colleagues (unprotected)? The approach aligns with the expression vs manifestation distinction discussed above.
• Employers should consider whether the employee role involves a public forum, and whether the commentary might reasonably affect workplace relationships, reputation or give rise to third-party complaints.
• Document any investigations, ensure consistent responses, and consider whether any less intrusive options exist (training, warning) rather than immediate dismissal unless the conduct is particularly egregious.

8. Conclusion

For employers and employees alike in the UK workplace, issues of antisemitism and Islamophobia—especially in the era of social media and public commentary—require nuanced, legally informed and proportionate responses. Key take-aways:

• Understand that beliefs (religious or philosophical) may be protected under the Equality Act 2010; but behaviour tied to those beliefs remains subject to employer policy and discipline.
• Use the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a helpful reference, but do not treat it as an automatic disciplinary standard: the legal focus remains on discrimination/harassment law and how expression is manifested in the employment context.
• Recognise that Islamophobia (anti-Muslim prejudice) is addressed through religion/belief discrimination frameworks—there is no separate statutory “definition” but the duty to prevent harassment remains clear.
• For outspoken employees (especially those with personal social media presences), employers need robust policy, proactive risk assessment, fair investigation procedures and clear lines of accountability—and employees need to engage with their public commentary with awareness of how it may impact their employer and colleagues.
• The Miller case reminds us that protection of belief is real in employment law—but it also shows the complexity for employers in balancing competing rights: the employee’s right to belief and expression vs employer’s duty of care to other staff and reputation.

At The Jonathan Lea Network, we advise both employers and employees on how to navigate these complexities. Whether you are drafting or reviewing policies, training your leadership team, responding to a complaint, or advising an individual facing disciplinary action, we bring specialist employment law expertise combined with practical understanding of these sensitive areas.

For tailored advice on your situation—whether you are dealing with a high-profile social media issue, an internal complaint of antisemitism or Islamophobia, or drafting your workplace policy—please contact us at the Network.

The stakes are high: reputation, employee wellbeing, legal compliance—and in the current climate, employers and employees cannot afford to be passive.

Please email wewillhelp@jonathanlea.net providing us with any relevant information ensuring that any call we have is as productive as possible or call us on 01444 708640. After this call, we can then email you a scope of work, fee estimate (or fixed fee quote if possible), and confirmation of any other points or information mentioned on the call.

 

VAT is charged at 20%.

This article is intended for general information only, applies to the law at the time of publication, is not specific to the facts of your case and is not intended to be a replacement for legal advice. It is recommended that specific professional advice is sought before relying on any of the information given. © Jonathan Lea Limited.

Photo by Umar ben on Unsplash