Belief that ‘white middle-aged men’ have an ‘unseen advantage’ at work falls under equality laws, tribunal judge rules

[IwantToRetire]

Believing in the notion that white men have an “unseen advantage” because of their gender and race is a legally protected belief, akin to veganism or gender-critical feminism.

The ruling comes in the case of self-proclaimed feminist Misti Kilburn, a senior HR manager suing a global manufacturing company for belief and sex discrimination.

Employment Judge George Alliott said: “It was clear to us, and we find, that [Ms Kilburn] does genuinely believe that white middle-aged men have an inherent advantage, in particular in the workplace, and that women remain disadvantaged, in particular in the workplace.

“We accept that many would subscribe to the view that in the workplace white middle-aged men have an advantage and women are disadvantaged.”

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/04/white-male-privilege-belief-protected-discrimination/

Can also be read at https://archive.is/sJBJk

“That said, such views, in our judgment, represent the reflection of, at least, the perceived reality where unfairness in the workplace needs to be acknowledged and addressed by equality in the workplace and the promotion of women’s rights.
“It is how [Ms Kilburn] perceives the world.”

How is an organisation suppose to function, if it has to take in to consideration everyone one it's employee's perception of reality.

This sounds like a bonkers ruling to me.

Looks like it was a preliminary hearing so presumably just verifying that the claims were valid to justify a full hearing.

I'll be interested to hear what the circumstances surrounding the claim are. Wonder if it will be reported or will The Telegraph lose interest after a single click-bait article?

How about the person who believes middle aged white women have an advantage in the workplace? Could their belief become protected too?
It’s an odd concept.

What about if someone believes women have an inherent advantage in the workplace for whatever batshit reason?

This protected belief stuff was always complete bullshit, we should have gone with provable fact.

This is the trouble with 'protected belief' as a concept - it shouldn't supersede law or the responsibility to carry out one's job. It shouldn't be used to give a person additional rights and create a two tiered workplace.

IMO if personal belief affects an employee's ability to do the work ( for example a pharmacist who won't dispense abortion/morning after pills), then they need to get another job. Not make their views the employer's or customer's problem!

Protected belief was designed to prevent people from having to compromise their own morality, not to support every bonkers belief to become enshrined in law!

What happens when employee A, who thinks white men have an advantage, meets employee B, who thinks white men are discriminated against?
Both can be equally convinced they are right. Who gets to call dibs in the workplace?

Yes. Another example of mission creep. The law is only ever the starting point these days.

Some evidence of this could probably be found, but wholly agree this is dodgy and it should be on provable hard evidence only, and kept within the original brief of the law. Not a means for one person's personal reality to be enforced on everyone else. Or a means to create divisive gangs within a group, and then set a hierarchy over who controls who and who has to obey.

I can’t find a copy of the decision (that’s normal for this type of tribunal) but it does look vulnerable. The Grainger tests are:

1. The belief must be genuinely held.
2. It must be a belief and not, as in McClintock, an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2009/0219_09_0311.html

This decision could be vulnerable on point 2. McClintock argued that his view that same-sex couples are inferior parents was based on unclear scientific evidence on the subject, and it was found not to be a protected belief because it was an opinion based on evidence (or lack of evidence). Had he argued that his view was a fundamental truth of human existence, it would have qualified as a belief (but not as a protected belief as it would likely have been found not WORIADS). Opinions based on evidence, whether right or wrong, are not protected beliefs. That is why the Forstater case argued that “sex matters” is not an opinion based on current information but is a fundamental belief about the world.

Is the complainant saying she will always believe white men have an advantage at work, regardless of scientific evidence on the subject? If so, is that WORIADS? If not - if she is arguing that it’s an opinion based on evidence - then it isn’t a Grainger belief.

Sounds much like it is the literal "belief" of a fact not the truth of the fact itself that is protected. Some prominent (and frankly misogynistic) MRAs believe certain white men and boys (eg working class) are disadvantaged and may genuinely believe so. Where does it end?

While I share some of the reservations about the protected characteristic of belief in general, doesn’t it sound like there’s potentially a lot more to this case?:

She is claiming for discrimination, as well as unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and victimisation.

At this paragraph

It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

This is basically an intersectional feminist belief.

I don’t think it will survive a serious examination of the Grainger test

Nobody gets to "call dibs" under UK equality law. That's not how it works. You're just not allowed to discriminate against people for holding those beliefs. Christians are not allowed to discriminate against atheists at work, and atheists are not allowed to discriminate against Christians at work. A person who believes that white men are advantaged is not allowed to discriminate against a person who believes the opposite.

And if you think white men (or women) are disadvantaged in the workplace then there are a very limited number of things you can (legally) do to address that disadvantage. Like hold some specific support events to help them prepare for job interviews. You do need some evidence to justify holding the event, like evidence that white men were under-represented in your sector, otherwise women or black people who didn't get that support would have a discrimination case against you. In the UK you can't try to redress the balance by positive discrimination like giving jobs preferentially to white men (unless its a job that you could say really needs to be done by a white man, hard to think of one, maybe a support worker for young white criminals)

UK equality law is smarter than it looks. Unless she's actually done something to illegally discriminate against white men then she is entitled to her views and within limits to express her views at work.

Why? Genuinely curious.

Not saying you’re wrong, just interested in the reasoning.

It’s fairly basic modern intersectional feminist rhetoric that white men in society have “white male privilege”. Many threads on Mumsnet have that as a starting point.

I’m not seeing why that wouldn’t be a protected belief in terms of being unfairly sacked for it, as the case suggests she is claiming.

I don't think I share the reservations about declaring this to be a protected belief. I think that, somewhere along the way, we have kind of developed a slightly wrong idea of what it means for something to be a protected belief.

We have accidentally started to talk about GC beliefs as if they amounted almost to a distinct new protected characteristic. So it seems like a big deal when another set of beliefs is judged to have the same level of protection. I guess the fear is that there will potentially be so many protected beliefs that the whole thing will spiral out of control.

But that way of thinking about the protection afforded to GC beliefs seems a little bit wrong. The Forstater judgement didn't establish them as a distinctive new and additional characteristic. It simply established how well they matched up to an already existing single set of criteria (the Grainger test) that can actually be met by literally countless belief systems.

Each judgement establishing that someone's belief is protected is simply the application of existing protections to the concrete details of the case. It doesn't enlarge the Equality Act in a problematic way - anymore than the concrete details relating to other protected characteristics in individual cases.

For example, the PC of age isn't overburdened by the fact that it applies to all ages.

other similar belief tests have won or failed on the extent to which it influenced how the believer lived their life and it was a pretty high bar.

Good post, @PlasticAcrobat you’ve articulated my thoughts.

This taps into the widespread misapplication of statistics. Trends that occur across a population (e.g. white middle class men’s privilege), should not be ascribed to any given person who sits within that population. Within that population there will be significant variance e.g. from significant disadvantage to extremely privileged- it’s often the shape of the distribution curve that differs.

I like to think that someone would fall fowl of the EA if they treat a specific white (pc race) male (pc sex) less favourably because of what stats say about the entire population of white males.

They can believe whatever they like - the question is how they manifest that. If her employer treated her appallingly for stating her beliefs then she deserves redress. I’ll be annoyed if the case is poorly made but presumably as she’s risking being called a hysterical woman she’s got good evidence…. We will find out at some point I suppose.

💯

The legal threshold for protection is that the belief is serious, sincere, and compatible with human rights in a democratic society.

I think a belief in ‘white privilege’ meets the bar, despite critical race theory, the theory underpinning it, being seriously flawed. I often disagree with people who have strongly held beliefs about ‘privilege’ but I defend their right to have them. The EA protects individuals from being discriminated against should beliefs about white privilege be enacted to their detriment.

Controversially, I think many or most gender ideology beliefs also past the Grainger Test. I would not want to ban people from believing and communicating that TWAW and that people can change sex. Alongside this the EA needs to be applied properly to ensure that sex is understood as a biological category and that gender ideology beliefs don’t override this.

Religious beliefs are protected without having any shred of reality too.

Whether belief in imaginary friends trumps belief that the world is ruled by a shadowy cabal of middle aged (presumably white ?) women is an interesting Radio 4 debate that is being ignored as I type.

Neither. Both need to act within the law and uphold the organisation’s code of conduct and dignity in the workplace policies.

It can be uncomfortable to know that people feel less favourably towards you because of certain characteristics. Knowing that your colleague thinks your same sex relationship is sinful and that you will go to hell is pretty grim. But, we live in a pluralistic society, which means we tolerate beliefs, even if they offend, whilst requiring everyone to be treated equally and with dignity.

The EA was written before advocacy groups started referring to books, films, talks and social media posts being ‘literal violence’ and declaring that it isn’t safe to be in the vicinity of someone who holds different belief to you.