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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll