Disciplinary action following posts about Israel/Palestine conflict was ‘heavy handed and not proportionate’ but not discrimination

February 25, 2026

We live in a world where people hold deeply felt and sometimes differing views on sensitive issues. Workplaces are a melting pot of diverse opinions, and conversations on sensitive topics can unfold in complex ways. The question of how employees and employers navigate these discussions lay at the heart of Ms A Sohail and Ms A Khalid v Lloyds Bank plc.

Background

Both Claimants are Muslim and were members of an internal network on the Respondent’s communication platform known as REACH (Race, Ethnicity and Cultural Heritage). The network aimed to “connect, support and develop colleagues from an ethnic minority background” and to improve cultural awareness and understanding.

REACH had organised an online discussion in response to the escalating Israel/Palestine conflict, but the event was cancelled without explanation. One of the Claimants subsequently posted several comments expressing concern about the cancellation and the lack of visible support or discussion from the Respondent about the conflict.

The second Claimant had requested a computer monitor to support remote working. On receiving it, she became distressed when she discovered it had been produced by a company identified by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign as one to avoid. She then posted a message expressing frustration about her employer’s use of products from a company identified by the BDS campaign, sharing this across several internal community pages, including IT‑related groups, REACH, and the Muslim Network. She also emailed the message to several generic IT inboxes and blind‑copied multiple senior managers involved in diversity and inclusion.

The Respondent’s Moderation Committee met to discuss the posts. It decided that the posts should be removed and that both Claimants should be referred for disciplinary investigation. Following that investigation, disciplinary action was recommended. The Claimants were invited to disciplinary hearings, informed that the issues were being treated as potential gross misconduct, and advised of the possible outcomes, including the regulatory consequences.

During one hearing, it was pointed out that the alleged conduct more closely aligned with the Respondent’s definition of “misconduct” rather than “gross misconduct”. Both Claimants challenged the suggestion that their posts or messages were antisemitic or racist and explained the context in which they had written them. No further investigation was carried out into either the factual accuracy of the posts or their actual or potential impact. The gross misconduct allegations were upheld and both Claimants received final written warnings.

The Respondent’s Conduct Panel then considered both cases and reported each Claimant to its regulators, including the Financial Conduct Authority. The Claimants were informed that this information would remain on their files for at least six years and would be included in any regulated references requested by future employers.

Both Claimants appealed, but their appeals were dismissed. Prior to these events, both had clean disciplinary records. They brought claims for direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, arguing that they held particular beliefs and that their posts/messages were manifestations of those beliefs.

Tribunal’s Decision

In cases concerning protected beliefs, a claimant is protected if they suffer adverse treatment either because they hold a protected belief or because they manifested or expressed that belief and the reason for the adverse treatment is because of that belief. The Tribunal therefore considered:

  • Whether the Claimants’ beliefs were protected; and
  • Whether their posts/messages were manifestations or expressions of such beliefs.

The Claimants relied on two sets of beliefs:

  • Religious Islamic beliefs centred on opposing oppression and racism; and
  • Anti‑Zionist beliefs.

The Tribunal accepted the first set of beliefs as protected but concluded that the posts/emails were not manifestations or expressions of those beliefs. It also found that the Claimants’ anti‑Zionist beliefs did not meet the legal tests required to qualify as protected beliefs. Importantly, the Tribunal noted that the Respondent’s decision‑makers had not considered whether the posts and emails were manifestations of belief, and neither Claimant had raised this during the disciplinary process. As a result, both direct discrimination claims failed.

For indirect discrimination, the Claimants did not provide evidence or statistics about any disadvantage experienced by Muslim employees compared with non‑Muslim colleagues in relation to disciplinary action for internal posts. This claim therefore failed.

The Tribunal described the case as a “difficult case to decide” and some of its decisions as “finely balanced”. For these reasons the Tribunal considered alternative outcomes, explaining that if the beliefs had been protected, the direct discrimination claims would have succeeded. This was because the Respondent’s actions, including final written warnings and reporting to regulators, were “heavy‑handed and not proportionate in light of the protected beliefs involved”. The Tribunal added that “far less intrusive” options were available, such as removing the posts and giving informal guidance. It also noted that neither Claimant intended to cause offence, both apologised when concerns were raised, neither had behaved similarly before, and both gave assurances that they would not repeat the behaviour.

Lessons for Employers

While decisions in these scenarios will depend heavily on the specific context, employers should generally consider the following:

  • Navigating differing views on geopolitical events is a delicate balance.
  • Disciplinary action must follow policy and should always be proportionate; informal action should be considered where appropriate.
  • Investigations must independently assess the content and context of posts rather than relying solely on complaints.
  • Although the Respondent ultimately succeeded in defending the claims, this was on technical grounds. The Tribunal was heavily critical of its approach, particularly the disproportionate disciplinary action.
How we can help

For further information, or to discuss the issues raised in this case, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.

Darren Smith
Partner, Employment
<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>
View profileContact Us
Isabella Milnes-James
View profileContact Us

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

Latest Legal Insights