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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Is a suspect’s state of mind a ‘fact’ capable of triggering adverse inferences? Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Smith of Corker Binning examines how R v Leslie reshapes the debate
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
back-to-top-scroll