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

Harper James—Lottie Hugo

Harper James—Lottie Hugo

Commercial law firm announces appointment of corporate partner

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
back-to-top-scroll