Karen Sunderland is suing her former employer for dismissing her because of her beliefs in conservatism and freedom of speech. She needs your help to pay for representation at the trial scheduled for 28 March 2023. Victory in this important claim could significantly increase the protection for viewpoint diversity in UK workplaces.

In 2017, Karen began campaigning for the Conservative Party, and in early 2018 she was selected to stand as the Conservative candidate in local elections for the Crofton Park Ward in Lewisham. In May of that year Karen fell victim to ‘offence archaeology’ when the iNews online newspaper reported tweets that Karen had posted in late 2017. The tweets reflected Karen’s sincere belief that aspects of Islamic doctrine, particularly the hijab headdress, are illiberal and unfair to women'. As a candidate for public office, Karen made an immediate and public apology for any offence caused by her choice of words.

More than three years later, Karen took up a position at as senior business development manager at the Hut.com Limited, an online retail business. Colleagues gossiped behind Karen’s back, with clear disapproval, about her membership of the Conservative party and circulated the iNews story.

When the story eventually came to the attention of management, the age of the story and Karen’s apology for the language she had used were not taken into account. In fact, she was dismissed there and then, without any proper investigation, any chance to prepare a defence to the accusations against her, and without the right to be accompanied to the disciplinary meeting.

With the help of the Free Speech Union, Karen filed a claim in the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, discrimination and harassment. Karen says that she was dismissed because of her political opinions and affiliations, that the dismissal was procedurally unfair, and that her years-old social media comments on a political matter did not constitute a fair reason for dismissal. Karen, and the Free Speech Union, believe it is crucial that the courts draw a line in the sand regarding historic social media comments – it is obviously unfair for careers to be blighted by never-to-be-forgotten statements, and the law should recognise this.

Karen’s discrimination claim has three aspects.

First, she says that her dismissal was a direct result of her belief in conservatism – both because of her association with the Conservative Party and because of her philosophical belief

Second, Karen her employer’s practice of punishing controversial statements made outside the workplace will inevitably result in disproportionate punishment of those employees who believe in, and practise, freedom of speech. Free-thinkers attract controversy, and always have.

Third, Karen says that the above practice of her employer will also result in disproportionate punishment of those employees with controversial beliefs – in Karen’s case, beliefs in conservatism, gender equality and secular atheism.

To succeed, Karen must persuade the Tribunal that her beliefs are protected by the Equality Act 2010. Winning on this ground would be an important achievement. Establishing that conservatism is a protected belief would bring balance to the law: while there is caselaw protecting left-wing democratic socialism there is not yet about its right-wing counterpart, and would protect employees with conservative views which, while wholly lawful, are distasteful to HR officers.

Even more important, a finding that freedom of speech is a protected belief would give legal protection to other employees who manifest that belief by speaking their minds and testing received wisdom.

Karen is represented by barrister Francis Hoar, acting on a direct access basis. Francis is one of England’s best barristers working on cases relating to freedom of speech and party-political matters: in 2021 he published In Protection of Freedom of Speech, with a Foreword by Lord Sumption. The Free Speech Union has funded the initial stages of litigation, including an inconclusive preliminary hearing on whether Karen’s beliefs are protected by the Equality Act. That matter will be considered along with the rest of Karen’s claim in a four-day trial starting on 28 March 2023. The stretch target reflects the fee quoted for the remaining work on Karen’s case.

In the interests of transparency, and so that Karen’s donors can take an informed view of the issues in this case, we set out below links to Karen's statement of case and relevant submissions:

• Claimant’s grounds of claim;
• Claimant’s skeleton argument for a preliminary hearing on the Claimant’s beliefs.

We asked the other side for permission to share their statement of case and submissions, so donors could make a fair and balanced assessment. Regrettably permission was refused. Please note that we unfortunately cannot provide information about any advice that has been given to Karen by her lawyers as to do so would waive (void) her legal professional privilege.

Please give what you can to help Karen bring this important claim before a judge.