Barts Health Trust Sued for Belief Discrimination After Watermelon Image Considered Antisemitic

Barts Health Trust is facing legal action at the employment tribunal over potential belief discrimination, following a revision to their uniform and dress code policy. The change came after a Jewish patient raised concerns about staff wearing pro-Palestinian symbols, perceived as carrying antisemitic connotations. In response, the Trust banned political symbols in an effort to promote neutrality.

However, some staff have since argued that this policy disproportionately targets those with pro-Palestinian views, effectively discriminating against them based on their philosophical beliefs.

Below, we examine the background to this case and the legal protections for philosophical beliefs in the UK. We then examine when such beliefs may be protected under the Equality Act 2010, looking at recent real-life examples. If you have questions about this case or believe you’ve experienced something similar at work, please get in touch.

As employment law specialists, Redmans Solicitors can provide clear, expert advice tailored to your situation. To get started:

• Call us on 020 3397 3603
• Request a callback via our online form

Barts Health Trust Faces Backlash Over Dress Code Policy

In March 2025, Barts Health Trust updated its dress code policy with the intention of enforcing political neutrality. An NHS spokesperson stated that its “primary responsibility” was patient care. As such, the revised document prohibited staff from wearing political symbols to promote a “safe space for patients.”

This policy revision followed a complaint from UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) to the trust earlier this year. UKLFI stated that a Jewish patient in the trust’s care had been made to “feel extremely vulnerable.” While waiting in the operating theatre, this patient claimed they saw various staff wearing symbols in support of Palestine. 

One example included a watermelon badge, notable for its discreet use as a pro-Palestinian symbol that emerged in 1967, when Israel banned the Palestinian flag. The fruit was used in its place because its colours mirrored those of the flag.

Given the ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza, and the resulting sensitivities among affected communities, the Jewish patient stated they “felt panicked.” They had concerns that their care might be jeopardised or, at the very least, feel “wholly unpleasant.”

However, not everyone supported Barts Health Trust’s decision. Senior nurse Ahmad Baker, a British-Palestinian at Whipps Cross Hospital, had faced possible disciplinary action for using a virtual background showing a fruit bowl that included a watermelon, because it was interpreted as having potential antisemitic connotations. He, along with Dr Aarash Saleh, a Jewish respiratory consultant, and Dr Sara Ali, a haematology registrar, launched legal action in response.

While Dr Saleh claimed the policy had created a “chilling effect,” making staff feel silenced and bringing into question UKLFI’s involvement in the matter, Dr Ali labelled it discriminatory, calling out double standards after the trust had previously publicly supported Ukraine. We now await the claim’s legal outcome.

Belief Discrimination: Philosophical Beliefs and Your Rights

Although several claims have been brought against Barts Health Trust, belief discrimination is central to them. Mr Baker, Dr Saleh, and Dr Ali all claim that the Trust’s policy revision disproportionately affects staff with pro-Palestinian views, infringing their rights under the Equality Act 2010.

This legislation states that individuals are protected against less favourable treatment, whereby they’re disadvantaged, due to their protected characteristics. Such treatment can present as direct or indirect discrimination, harassment, or victimisation. In the case of the three NHS workers, they allege to have been put at a disadvantage because of their philosophical beliefs related to the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Under UK law, a belief is protected from discrimination if it satisfies specific conditions. Employment tribunals typically use the test established in Grainger plc & others v Nicholson when determining whether a belief is protected. This test sets out that, for a belief to be protected, it must be:

• Genuinely held
• More than a mere opinion or viewpoint, based on the current state of knowledge
• A belief concerning a significant and fundamental aspect of human life
• Logically consistent, serious, coherent, and substantially significant
• Worthy of respect in a democratic society, aligned with human dignity, and compliant with the fundamental rights of others

If an individual has faced less favourable treatment because of their philosophical beliefs, and said beliefs satisfy the Grainger test, they may be able to seek redress in the employment tribunal. Here, they could claim belief discrimination and, should their claim succeed, they may be awarded compensation.

When Are Beliefs Protected? A Look at Recent Tribunal Decisions

It will be interesting to see how the Barts Health Trust case unfolds. In recent years, several cases concerning belief discrimination have been brought, with some going for and others against the Claimant.

One of the most high-profile successes was that of Maya Forstater, a tax expert sacked after posting gender-critical tweets. Her tweets, which questioned proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act and expressed concerns about the impact on women’s rights, were initially ruled not to constitute a protected belief. The tribunal found her views to be “absolutist” and incompatible with the dignity of others.

However, this decision was later overturned on appeal, where the appeal tribunal found that her beliefs, although controversial, were still worthy of respect in a democratic society. The case was remitted for reconsideration, and Ms Forstater was awarded over £100,000 in compensation for direct discrimination and victimisation.

By contrast, in Mr S Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, the tribunal dismissed a claim brought by a worker who adopted anti-Islamic views under the banner of “English nationalism.” Mr Thomas had posted online that Islam should be banned and Muslims deported, views which the tribunal found incompatible with human dignity and the fundamental rights of others. Citing Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the judge reaffirmed that freedom of belief doesn’t extend to views that actively seek to undermine the rights of others. His belief failed the Grainger test, and his dismissal was upheld.

Therefore, while UK law does provide robust protections for philosophical beliefs, not all strongly held views will qualify. The Grainger test remains the key legal threshold, and it will be up to the tribunal to decide whether those held in the Barts Health Trust case qualify.

Want Help After Reading About Barts Health Trust?

Thank you for reading this latest employment insight concerning the case involving Barts Health Trust and philosophical beliefs. If you have any queries or want help with your case, please contact Redmans Solicitors now.

As experts in the employment sector, we can discuss your circumstances, answer your questions, and outline your possible next steps. All you have to do to get started is:

• Give us a call on 020 3397 3603
• Complete our online form to request a callback