header-logo header-logo

08 January 2020
Issue: 7869 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Discrimination against vegans?

‘Philosophical belief’ is an employment ‘area to watch’, following a high-profile case on ethical veganism

In a first instance decision last week, employment tribunal judge Robin Postle held that Jordi Casamitjana’s ethical veganism amounted to a ‘philosophical belief’ under the Equality Act 2010, one of nine characteristics protected from discrimination.

The tribunal, in Norwich, will now consider Casamitjana’s dismissal from the League Against Cruel Sports. The League did not contest the point of whether veganism is a philosophical belief, and argues that the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.

Sarah Chilton, partner at CM Murray, said: ‘It’s really important to note that this case was specifically about the claimant’s own personal beliefs―it is not a general finding about whether ethical veganism is or should be protected under the Equality Act 2010.

‘Every case will be looked at carefully, on its own facts.’ She said the relevant factors are: ‘The belief must be genuinely held; that it must be a belief―an opinion or a viewpoint will not be enough; that it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life; that it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and that it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not be incompatible with human dignity and/or not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.’

Hina Belitz, employment lawyer at Excello Law, said it was ‘precisely because of the extensive nature of ethical veganism as a system of thought that the tribunal came to this view’. 

She said she has ‘successfully settled a number of cases based on the beliefs people hold including a case in which we alleged feminism was a philosophical belief that led to the woman in question (who was a visible proponent of her beliefs) to be placed on a performance improvement plan, so this is definitely an area to watch’.

Nick Hobden, partner at Thomson Snell & Passmore said it should be noted the case ‘is not legally binding but instead provides guidance for future judgments’. However, he suggested employers rethink the food options in their work canteen.

Issue: 7869 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll