Belief, Manifestation and the Limits of “Systemic Racism” Discrimination Claims: Lessons from London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Garrett [2026] EAT 77

With a lot of recent movement in the case law surrounding gender-critical beliefs, religious views, and the line between political opinion and protected belief, we now have another case that sets the boundaries for employers. London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Garrett looks at a case involving an employee's rejection of the concept of ‘systemic racism’ and his expression of his belief.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned an Employment Tribunal's majority decision that had upheld three complaints of direct discrimination because of belief, and one complaint of direct race discrimination, brought by a white British ambulance worker who was disciplined after comments made in a cafeteria conversation about Black Lives Matter and systemic racism.

The decision is a useful illustration of how tribunals can go wrong when analysing belief discrimination claims and offers a template for how employers should structure their own decision making to avoid similar findings.

The background facts

Mr Garrett, employed by the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust since 2015, was involved in two incidents in 2020.

• January 2020: during a heated exchange with a black colleague, he used the word ‘roadman’ (a slang term usually used to describe someone who spends a lot of time on the streets and is usually involved in criminal activity).
• June 2020: in the wake of George Floyd's death, Mr Garrett took part in a cafeteria conversation about Black Lives Matter in which he said he rejected the concept of ‘systemic racism’, referencing non-white friends who had achieved success, and made further comments (which he denied but the tribunal found he had made) about incarceration rates, education, and poverty being tied to personal choices rather than systemic factors.

Following a complaint from a colleague who overheard the exchange, an investigation and disciplinary process followed. The investigator did not interview the one colleague who had been party to the conversation, on the basis he considered he already had enough information. Mr Garrett was found guilty of gross misconduct, given a final written warning, and required to undertake unconscious bias training, an allyship workshop, and a formally referenced written reflective practice on ‘acceptable language for the workplace and systemic racism’.

The Employment Tribunal, by majority, upheld three of the claimant's belief discrimination complaints and one race discrimination complaint, awarding £3,750 for injury to feelings.

Where the tribunal went wrong

1. Conflating belief with manifestation of belief. Mr Garrett’s protected belief, as ultimately formulated, was a normative belief; that all people are part of one human race and should be treated with equal respect (a proposition the respondent accepted was uncontroversial and squarely met the Grainger criteria). Separately, he held a descriptive view; that ‘systemic racism’ does not exist. The tribunal majority held that the second was a ‘manifestation’ of the first, reasoning that rejecting systemic racism theory ‘flows logically’ from a belief in equal treatment.

The EAT held this reasoning was flawed. A normative belief about how people ought to be treated does not logically require, or link to, a descriptive belief about whether a particular sociological phenomenon exists. As the EAT noted, someone could equally hold the same belief in equal treatment while accepting that systemic racism does exist. Because that link was missing, the disciplinary treatment could not lawfully be characterised as a response to a manifestation of Mr Garrett’s protected belief at all – which meant all three belief discrimination findings fell away.

2. Failing to test the "true reason" using a proper comparator. In relation to the decision not to interview a key witness, the tribunal did not ask whether the investigator would have acted the same way had the claimant made some other remark he considered ‘racially charged’, regardless of any belief manifestation. Without that hypothetical comparison, there was no proper basis to conclude the shortfall in the investigation was because of the belief itself.
3. Not engaging with the employer's stated reasons. In relation to both the belief and race discrimination complaints about how Mr Garrett’s supporting evidence was assessed, the tribunal majority said the employer had offered no non-discriminatory explanation. When, in fact, the decision maker's evidence was that he discounted that material specifically because it lacked academic rigour (the same standard, it should be noted, that was applied in the claimant's favour when a ‘diversity consultant's’ view was rejected on identical grounds). The EAT held that this was a specific, relevant strand of evidence the tribunal was required to grapple with, and failing to do so was an error of law.
4. Not properly linking the sanction to protected conduct. The tribunal found that the written reflective practice sanction was imposed because of Mr Garrett’s rejection of systemic racism itself. But the decision maker's own evidence was that the sanction was directed at the offensive manner in which views were expressed, not the holding of the view. The tribunal needed to engage with that evidence before concluding the sanction targeted the belief.
5. Perversity on the race discrimination finding. The EAT went further on the standalone race discrimination complaint, finding the majority's conclusion could not be supported by the evidence. There was no proper basis to infer that Mr Garrett’s supporting material was dismissed because of his race, rather than for the academic rigour reason actually given.

The EAT substituted a decision dismissing all four complaints, rather than remitting them.

Practical takeaways for HR and employment teams

It is important to separate the belief from its expression and interrogate the causal chain

Where disciplinary action follows something an employee has said, resist the temptation to frame the "real reason" loosely. Ask specifically: are we responding to the fact the employee holds a view, or to something objectively inappropriate in how, when, or where it was expressed? Document that distinction clearly in outcome letters.

Use the "hypothetical comparator" discipline in investigations

Before curtailing an investigation or declining to interview a witness, ask whether you would take the same shortcut regardless of the specific characteristic in play. Recording that reasoning contemporaneously is far more persuasive after the event than reconstructing it at tribunal.

Engage with evidence the employee puts forward

A blanket dismissal of supporting material invites an inference of discrimination. A short, evidenced explanation (as here, ‘this material is not academically rigorous’) is far more defensible, provided it is applied consistently to material from all sides.

Apply sanctions consistently and be precise about their purpose

If disciplinary outcomes include training or reflective exercises, frame these around demonstrable conduct (tone, respect for colleagues, workplace behaviour) rather than around changing an employee's underlying opinions or beliefs. A sanction that reads as an attempt to correct someone's thinking, rather than their behaviour, is vulnerable to challenge.

Train investigators and decision makers on the belief/manifestation distinction

With gender critical belief, political opinion, and now views on systemic racism all generating tribunal litigation, investigators handling potential belief discrimination issues should be trained to identify the protected belief precisely, and to test whether contested conduct is genuinely a manifestation of it before treating it as such.

Garrett is a helpful reminder that not every strongly held opinion an employee expresses is protected merely because it touches on a sensitive subject, and that tribunals (and employers) must be rigorous in tracing the link between a genuinely protected belief and the conduct said to manifest it. For employers, the case underlines the value of clear, evidence based reasoning at every stage of an investigation and disciplinary process. Reasoning that focuses on conduct, engages properly with the evidence on both sides, and is recorded with enough precision to withstand scrutiny long after the event is the standard that should be strived for.

If you would like employment law advice in relation to a discrimination issue in your business, contact our specialist team via any of our offices or complete our online enquiry form.

How To Contact Us:

To contact a member of our team, you can fill in our online enquiry form, email info@fraserdawbarns.com, or call your nearest office below. If you’d like to speak to a member of our team at one of our offices across Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, visit our offices page.

Wisbech: 01945 461456

March: 01354 602880

King’s Lynn: 01553 666600

Ely: 01353 383483

Downham Market: 01366 383171

This article aims to supply general information, but it is not intended to constitute advice. Every effort is made to ensure that the law referred to is correct at the date of publication and to avoid any statement which may mislead. However, no duty of care is assumed to any person and no liability is accepted for any omission or inaccuracy. Always seek advice specific to your own circumstances. Fraser Dawbarns LLP is always happy to provide such advice.