This case involved an ‘Ethical Vegan’, Mr Casamitjana, who was dismissed from his employment with the League Against Cruel Sports. The Tribunal decided that Ethical Veganism was capable of being a protected philosophical belief and, therefore, of being a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
There are a number of important things to point out regarding this case:
1. The Respondent (perhaps unsurprisingly due to their nature) did not challenge the point in question, however the Employment Judge made a point of not accepting the concession and reaching his own conclusions. Written reasons regarding the preliminary hearing judgment will be published by the ET in due course.
2. This case is actually about an unfair dismissal claim in which the Claimant was dismissed for Gross Misconduct. He is arguing that the dismissal was actually because of his being an Ethical Vegan. The Respondent maintains that this was unrelated and that his dismissal was purely related to his conduct. The ET will decide this issue in the future.
3. First Tier Employment Tribunal decisions are not binding on future Tribunals and do not change the law. This decision is clearly not going to be appealed. They are, however, potentially influential on future conduct, and – certainly with the publicity that this case has received – it could encourage further claims from Claimants with similar philosophical beliefs, and Respondents who may take on the legal argument relating to this point, thus potentially leading to binding case law.
4. Mr Casamitjana had a set of values which were particularly personal to him and which the Tribunal found were capable of amounting to a philosophical belief. This does not mean that the same decision would be made in other cases. Whilst some people choose to simply follow a vegan diet – namely a plant-based diet avoiding all animal products such as dairy, eggs, honey, meat and fish – ethical vegans attempt to exclude all animal exploitation from the choices they make. They do not buy clothing made from wool or leather, and they avoid toiletries that are tested on animals.
This is not necessarily unusual in modern life, however, Mr Casamitjana’s belief system went as far as refusing to use the bus – preferring to walk to work in order to avoid crashes with other animals or insects. The Employment Judge stated that these beliefs were worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others.
5. It is unlikely that this would extend into less extreme dietary requirements – such as someone choosing to be vegetarian, for example. However, the crucial point is that this particular ET ruling relates to one particular set of beliefs held by one Claimant. It also does not mean that every vegan has protection under the Equality Act.
6. This said, it is a useful reminder to employers everywhere that these types of beliefs can amount to protected characteristics and a general level of respect and tolerance is always helpful!
It’s our mission to advise and develop the employment law capability of HR professionals wherever we can, helping HR teams make a real commercial difference to their organisations. That way, you spend less time solving operational issues and more time actioning projects that drive far-reaching change in your company.
Call 0333 006 2929 or email firstname.lastname@example.org today to discover exactly how we can help you.