The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed the University of Bristol’s challenge in the case of academic Dr David Miller, upholding a landmark finding that anti-Zionism can qualify as a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.
The judgment, handed down in London on Tuesday, 4 August, represents one of the most significant legal victories for anti-Zionists and Palestine solidarity campaigners in Britain.
The case, University of Bristol v Dr David Miller, followed an earlier ruling in Miller’s favour in 2024.
That tribunal found that his anti-Zionist beliefs were serious and sincerely held, and therefore protected in law in the same way as other philosophical or religious beliefs.
The original tribunal unanimously ruled that Miller’s beliefs constituted a philosophical belief and therefore a protected characteristic under the legislation. It also found that his dismissal by the University of Bristol amounted to direct discrimination and that he had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed.
Binding precedent for British workplaces
The appeal judgment is particularly significant because decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal are binding on lower employment tribunals.
This means the legal recognition of anti-Zionism as a potentially protected philosophical belief is no longer confined to the outcome of a single first-instance case.
The ruling establishes that employers cannot lawfully dismiss or discriminate against an employee merely because they hold a qualifying anti-Zionist belief.
Anti-Zionist beliefs that satisfy the established legal criteria are therefore protected in a manner comparable to religious beliefs and other philosophical convictions recognised under the Equality Act.
The protection may also extend to the expression of those beliefs. However, it does not provide automatic legal protection for every statement or action made in their name. Employment tribunals may still consider the manner, context and proportionality of particular expressions.
Miller dismissed following pressure campaign
Miller, formerly a professor of political sociology at the University of Bristol, was dismissed without notice for alleged gross misconduct in October 2021.
His dismissal followed controversy surrounding his public criticism of Zionism, Israeli policy and organisations that advocate for Israel in Britain.
The original Employment Tribunal concluded that dismissal was too severe and had been influenced by Miller’s protected beliefs. While it found that some disciplinary action short of dismissal could have been proportionate, it rejected the university’s decision to terminate his employment.
The University of Bristol appealed the ruling, arguing that the tribunal had made legal errors in its assessment. Miller also brought a cross-appeal concerning other elements of the original decision.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now rejected the university’s challenge, confirming the legal protection afforded to Miller’s anti-Zionist belief.
‘A victory for the anti-Zionist movement’
Reacting to the judgment, Miller said the University of Bristol’s appeal had been “comprehensively dismissed” and described the outcome as a victory for the wider anti-Zionist movement.
The Left Legal Fighting Fund, which supported the case, called the judgment a major precedent confirming that a person cannot lawfully be dismissed simply for holding and expressing protected anti-Zionist beliefs.
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for universities, employers and public institutions across Britain.
Palestine solidarity campaigners have increasingly faced investigations, suspensions and disciplinary action over their opposition to Zionism and the conduct of the Israeli state.
The judgment strengthens the legal distinction between antisemitism — hostility or prejudice directed towards Jewish people — and anti-Zionism, which concerns opposition to Zionism as a political ideology and project.
For employees and academics engaged in advocacy for Palestine, the decision offers an important affirmation that sincerely held opposition to Zionism may constitute a serious, coherent and legally protected philosophical belief under British law.
