Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In Grey v Mulberry Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 1720 the Court of Appeal considered whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal were correct to dismiss the Claimant’s appeal from a decision of the Employment Tribunal.  The Employment Tribunal had originally held that an employee had not been discriminated against because of her philosophical beliefs when she refused to sign an intellectual property agreement because she was concerned about the rights it would give her employer over her work as a writer and a film maker.

The facts in Gray v Mulberry Company (Design) Ltd

On 28 January 2015, Ms Gray (the ‘Claimant’) started working for Mulberry Company (Design) Ltd (‘the Respondent’) as a Market Support Assistant.

The Respondent required all new employees to sign an agreement protecting its intellectual property rights. The agreement stated that an employee assigns to them “all copyright works and designs originated, conceived, written or made by you during the period of your service’. The Claimant refused to sign because she was concerned it also covered her work as a writer and film maker.

In response to her concerns the Respondent agreed to amend the agreement to add “which relate to any business of Mulberry Company or any matter arising from your employment with Mulberry”.  Still concerned about the wording the Claimant continued to refuse to sign the agreement and she was dismissed with notice by the Respondent.

The Claimant initially brought an automatic unfair dismissal claim on the basis of having asserted a statutory right.  She later changed her claim to one of direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of philosophical belief under section 4 of the Equality Act 2010.  The philosophical belief she was attempting to rely on was that she should own and profit from the rights to her work.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) dismissed the Claimant direct discrimination claim.  They found that the Claimant had been dismissed because of her failure to sign the agreement and not because of her belief itself.  They also found that her belief, while genuinely held and concerning a substantial and weighty aspect of human life, could not be defined as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.

They also dismissed the Claimant’s indirect discrimination claim holding that the Respondent’s actions were a proportionate means of safeguarding its intellectual property. The requirement to sign the agreement or face dismissal, did not put other employees sharing her belief at a disadvantage to those not holding such a belief, but still refusing to sign.

The Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’).

Employment Appeal Tribunal

The EAT dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. They concluded that whilst the Claimant’s belief may have led to her refusal to sign the agreement, as she had not made the Respondent aware of her belief it could not have been the reason for dismissal.

They also agreed with the ET that her belief lacked sufficient cogency to qualify as a protected belief under the Equality Act.  They found that having a belief (albeit relating to an important aspect of human life or behaviour) was not enough in itself for it to have a similar status to a religious belief.

Finally, there was no indirect discrimination. The Claimant failed to establish any group disadvantage in relation to the conduct she was complaining of.

The Claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal

The Claimant’s appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal (‘COA’) held that there was no protected philosophical belief made out because there was no causal link between the Claimant’s belief’s and her refusal to sign the agreement or the Respondent’s decision to dismiss her (it is important to note here that at no time had the Claimant advised the Respondent as to her belief).  They held that the Claimant had refused to sign the agreement because she felt it was too favourable to the Respondent, not because of her belief in general.  It agreed that this could not be considered a philosophical belief. In its judgment the COA stated: “The claimant’s crisis of conscience about signing and/or refusal to sign was not the result of her belief, as defined, but the result of her wish to achieve greater protection for her own creative works.’

In relation to the indirect discrimination claim, the key consideration was whether the Respondent’s requirement for employees to sign the agreement put or would put those sharing the Claimant’s belief at a particular disadvantage when compared to others. As the Claimant was unable to provide any evidence showing that those holding the same belief as her would suffer a disadvantage, coupled with fact that the agreement was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, meant the Claimant’s claim could not succeed.

Our solicitors’ views on the case of Grey v Mulberry Limited

Sacha Barrett, a Senior Associate in the employment department at Redmans, made the following comment on the case: “Whilst philosophical belief has a wide meaning, it must relate to a ‘weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour’ and attain a ‘certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance’. The sanctity of an individual’s intellectual property rights, on this occasion, did not meet that high bar.’

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Grey v Mulberry Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 1720 can be found here.

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.76 Average

164 Reviews

Samantha K

Absolutely brilliant thank you. Caroline Lewis is a legend

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

The legal advice was clear and helpful.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Davinder P

Good Service

Posted 2 weeks ago

Adrian V

I was using Redmans services for a Settlement Agreement. Very quick and professional service. The outcome was favourable and I was very pleased with the amendments and results. Pretty glad to recommend them for any type of legal advice.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Very responsive, efficient, clear and supportive. Thank you! Highly recommend.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Tiago S

Chris was always prompt to help me with legal matters that are beyond my comprehension and very helpful leasing with my former employer. I would recommend Redmans Solicitors to everyone who needs help.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Fast and professional advice tailored to what was needed. Thanks for your help Chris Hadrill and team.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Peter S

Really pleased with the outcome and the advice I had from Chris and Sacha.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Harika A

Redmans solicitor's helped me with my settlement agreement, Chris has been very helpful throughout the process.He was very prompt in his responses and made my settlement look simple.Special thanks to Caroline for her efficient communication, thorough explaination of contract terminology and negotiations.I highly reccommend Redmans solicitors for anyone seeking employment related legal help.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Good and quick service

Posted 3 weeks ago

Ricky D

Very satisfying to be assured of such attention and professionalism.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Excellent service - thankyou

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Efficient, timely and friendly support and advice

Posted 3 weeks ago

Ahmed S

They are always on hand when you need them and provide support even when its not necessary.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Nemen S

Wonderful experience.Chris was very responsive and provided an excellent service. A real professional who I would recommend to anyone

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Their guidance was clear and they provided me with all the information I required. Friendly yet professional

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Chris @ Redmans assisted me with an employment issue. Firstly, he was very proactive in coming back to my initial enquiry and then helped to clearly lay out the options that I had in relation to my position. He then assisted with the preparation of my case, which led to a very satisfactory outcome. I would highly recommend the quality of service & professionalism offered by Redmans Solicitors.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Great service

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Chris was very effective and decisive in dealing with my matter. I felt guided, and the pressure to make decisions was taken off my shoulders; he knew what needed to be done and I was happy to follow his advice. The result of the legal dispute was a great success for me. He is also kind and personable. The only thing that I would say it could be improved, is the accuracy of cost estimation at the beginning: not many activites, that could not have been forseen had to take place, but costs went up more than double in the end. Overall very good and trustworthy. I would definately recommend and use Redmans services again.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Liz P

An excellent professional service was provided by Chris Hadrill and Mel Chin. Efficient and trustworthy - would highly recommend this company.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Redmans Solicitors were great. They were able to advice me quickly and efficiently! I would recommend them, as a good solicitors to use.

Posted 1 month ago