header-logo header-logo

Discrimination against vegans?

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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll