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

Also I think the wording of this judgment implies that there is also a sex discrimination claim involved, but the purpose of this hearing was to examine the belief claim against Grainger.

Precisely.

Off topic, but how does the "belief" that humans can't change sex not fall foul of rule 2?

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!

Quite. I believe that the moon is made from cheese. Am I protected provding I genuinely believe it?

“Nothing particularly special” - go tell that to legally challenged TRA influenced organisations such as NHS Fife, the Open University, the Arts Council, Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, the ONS, DCMS and DMIT, CGD Europe, Garden Court Chambers, the Green Party etc etc etc. It’s been an expensive undertaking for them 🤷‍♀️ as someone grudgingly pointed out on r/transgenderuk the other day, these cases have a higher rate of success than other discrimination cases, probably because these organisations thought they could behave badly with impunity.

IANAL but I think that would fail Grainger 4.

I wonder if the reason might be something to do with the fact that a belief in the reality and significance of sex is deeply and pervasively enmeshed with a range of broadly feminist values and social interpretations.

I mean, I don't imagine that reasoning of this sort is stated in the judgement, but I'm thinking about the intuitions that guide judges as they decide.

All (non-religious) 'fundamental beliefs about the world' are likely to be at least partly founded in (true or false) opinions based on current evidence. No one is going to claim that their (non-religious) worldview is not grounded in opinions relating to current evidence: such a claim would undermine their worldview.

Many worldviews are grounded in a smallish set of iconic opinions relating to current evidence -- such as the opinion that sex is real and significant

Opinions of this sort seem like the likely candidates for meeting the Grainger test, because they are not just opinions relating to current evidence' they are the wellspring and rallying call of a worldview. They are held, not just in isolation, but as the core of a system of values and interpretations.

Any other interpretation of the distinction between 'opinion' and 'belief' would seem artificial because, when it comes down to it, all opinions are beliefs and vice versa. As I understand it, the Grainger test just picks out a subset of beliefs that form a core part of a fundamental worldview.

The thing is, we are living in topsy turvy land where gender identity theory is treated as fact whereas sex being binary, immutable and relevant is treated as a protected belief.

In reality it should be the other way round.

Unfortunately I think we have ended up here because feminists needed to use the Equality Act to protect them against discrimination, and "being willing to state facts at a time when the clowns are in charge of the circus" isn't a protected characteristic. At the time the Equality Act was drafted, this war on reality hadn't yet begun and nobody anticipated that speaking the truth was something that would need specific protection in law.

I wonder whether it would have been better for feminists to go down the indirect sex discrimination route on the grounds that denying the material reality of biological sex has a disproportionate negative effect on women.

I'm coming to the conclusion that protected belief shouldn't exist, only protected characteristics, such as sex. race, disability etc. Rooted in reality stuff!

While we all retain the right to our opinions and no one's opinions should see them being discriminated against at work (so long as they are doing their job properly), perhaps it's time that we stopped this 'bring your whole self to work' thing, and as adults, accepted that no one needs to hear our opinions on Brexit or Trump or TWAW while we are carrying out our paid employment. And if we choose to share our opinions, other people have the right to think we are batshit and judge us!

Personally I'd remove religion as something which needs to be protected or considered at work - it's a personal, completely unprovable belief that employers shouldn't have to indulge. If your deep Christian beliefs mean you don't believe in contraception or MAP for ex, the onus should be on you to not get a job as a pharmacist, not on the employer to have to refer your customers to someone who will do their whole job properly.

I can't get on board with some opinions being more important than others. The nature of belief is that it's deeply and sincerely held, whatever the nature of that belief is!

The only exception I can really think of is where the nature of the job has changed after you've begun employment.

I suppose my main concern is that this is just poking the hornet's nest given the tone of the Telegraph article.
Will we see MRA activists doing a James Damore and demanding the right to argue against feminist principles.
James Damore's diversity lawsuit against Google comes to quiet end - CNET https://share.google/2TNoldcGUYZ2e458T
By the way I don't think he should have been sacked.

Personally I'd remove religion as something which needs to be protected or considered at work

This would mean that my Muslim sil would have no recourse when she was discriminated against at work. That really wouldn’t be right.

So based purely on statistics, a woman could refuse to engage with a white middle-aged man because they have a cause to doubt their competence ?

I meant it's not wrong 😀, but I can't see that getting me off any speeding tickets.

If you don’t think he should have been sacked then you are basically in line with the point here, that you shouldn’t sack people just because they have ideological beliefs, however wrong or objectionable. Where those beliefs are not used to discriminate against others or harass others. Plenty of people absolutely did want him sacked though.

I imagine it “came to a quiet end” because Google paid him off handsomely including a clause to not discuss it any more.

Indeed.

My dh is a white middle aged man. He’s retired now but was often referred to in work as having some sort of advantage. He reminded people he’s the child of Irish immigrants who came to London in the 60s without a pot to piss in

I guarantee you will find someone who isn't a WMAM has had a worse experience though.

Once you start playing top trumps with privilege, equality and society, you'll never get any work done. It's only half-funny to comment on the supposed productivity crisis the UK supposedly faces that has become a permanent reason for every shrinking tax revenues ....

Of course I don't think people should be sacked for their beliefs. But this is making it a minefield for employers. If Mili can talk about privileged white men; working class white men can talk about privileged middle class white women.

It's a zero sum game of top trumps as previous poster said.

Mili works in HR a job which by definition requires neutrality. I'm interested to see what her claims are.

I don’t have a problem with working class men talking about class privilege. They’d have a job making it stick that women are especially privileged though.

That’s why I basically think privilege theory isn’t that valuable at the individual level. It’s useful in terms of class analysis to a point.

The problem is everyone is special.

Indeed.

Women certainly seem to be more employable these days, especially in jobs that require less formal education. More traditional male labour jobs are the ones that have disappeared in great numbers..

Not getting into a debate about that, but suffice to say I think it should be perfectly ok both to hold and express those opinions in the workplace and to challenge them, and absent any form of discrimination or harassment by the holder on that basis, people shouldn’t be sacked or punished for holding them.

If your deep Christian beliefs mean you don't believe in contraception or MAP for ex, the onus should be on you to not get a job as a pharmacist, not on the employer to have to refer your customers to someone who will do their whole job properly.

The employer can say 'all employed pharmacists must be willing to dispense contraception and MAP'

That would be indirect discrimination against people with deep religious objections but if the employer can show it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim then it would be lawful.

Similarly an employer could say all employees must be available to work on Friday evenings, or on Sundays, or a butcher could say all employees must be willing to butcher pork.

Legitimate aim does not need to be particularly worthy - business aims are legitimate. Whether it was proportionate would depend on the individual circumstances, e.g. a small community pharmacy might need all employees to dispense contraception and MAP because they only have one or two working there and they would otherwise have to turn customers away. OTOH a big online pharmacy might have enough pharmacists working that it creates no operational difficulties for the religious pharmacist to opt out of dispensing them.