Employers cannot ignore the war in Israel as it spills into the UK

The effects of the crisis in Israel will have ramifications across the world, and employers have a responsibility not to ignore how it could impact their staff, writes Harry Abrams

The awful atrocities occurring in Israel and Gaza have shocked the world. We have watched it play out on our social media feeds, within our friendship groups, and even within our offices. The events that play out on the world stage often seep into the workplace, and employers have a responsibility to be aware of their duties to their staff. 

On the most basic level, obviously any less favourable treatment because of someone’s religious beliefs would amount to discrimination on the grounds of religion. But there is also a more subtle ground of claim which employers need to be aware of.

There may be a belief that the crisis currently unfolding is caused by the very existence of the state of Israel. Those who believe the Jewish people should have the right to their own state are said to have a belief in “Zionism” which could amount to a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.  To that end, if an employee suffers unfavourable treatment on the grounds of being Zionist (or even anti-Zionist) this could be grounds for a discrimination claim.  

This is more subtle but potentially more wide-reaching as someone can hold one of these “beliefs” irrespective of their religion and therefore could be open to all employees. This is in contrast to the more obvious claim of discrimination based on religion which would typically only be available to those who hold a religious belief or those who associate with those who hold the religious belief.

Without a doubt, employers should remain vigilant to workplace discussions about current affairs and particularly issues that have stirred the national emotion as much as this week’s events. There is a fine balance between an employee’s freedom of speech and comments that can cause offence to their colleagues. Under the Equality Act 2010 it is not a defence to say that no upset was intended, as the mere consequence of the conduct causing offence is sufficient.

An employer can also be held vicariously liable for discrimination by their employees, unless they had  taken all reasonable steps to prevent such acts occurring.  

We are also living in a work environment where employees expect their employers to not shy away from socio-political issues. For example, a journalist at the BBC resigned because he felt the broadcaster’s response was insufficient. 

Dealing with challenging political situations is made all the more difficult for employers by staff posting about it on social media, especially where their employer is attached to their profile. This remains true even where there is a kind of disclaimer absolving their employer of responsibility for their individual opinions. 

In the US, for example, an offer of employment was withdrawn from a student at New York University, in response to a statement made about the crisis in Israel. 

Employers have the difficult task of having to weigh up the right an individual has to express their views against concerns over the impact that social media posts could have on the reputation of the company. 

Employers have a responsibility and expectation to actively address events such as these but must do so with an awareness of the diverse composition of their workforce and an appreciation of the differing impact this will be having on its employees.