A tribunal has ruled that “ethical veganism” is a philosophical belief and should have legal protection against discrimination in the same way as a religion.
In a landmark legal case, employment judge Robin Postle found on Friday that ethical veganism was worthy of protection under the Equality Act 2010.
The case was brought by Jordi Casamitjana, the former head of policy and research at animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports, who is challenging his sacking by the charity in 2018 after telling colleagues that their workplace pensions were invested in companies that conducted animal testing.
He argued that he was let go due to his vegan beliefs, which the charity denies. Instead the organisation said it sacked him for “gross misconduct” after alleging he had given his colleagues biased financial advice in relation to their workplace pensions, against management’s instructions.
As part of his two-stage claim for unlawful dismissal, Mr Casamitjana had to first establish that ethical vegans had recourse to the Equality Act in front of the tribunal in Norwich.
In an important evolution in the law, the judge said it was clear that veganism had a big impact on Mr Casamitjana’s daily life and met a series of tests set out in UK case law, including that it was a cogent and serious belief and worthy of respect in a democratic society.
Lawyers said that although the judgment was significant, it was not binding and other employment tribunals could come to different conclusions in future cases and each claim would have to be assessed on its own merits.
The case would have to be upheld on appeal for it to set a precedent for lower-tier tribunals to follow. But as the charity had not contested the idea that veganism was a philosophical belief it was unlikely there would be an appeal in this case, lawyers said.
“This is the decision of one employment tribunal so it is not technically speaking binding but it is persuasive. It is a victory for veganism and has to be seen as that but it does not mean that everyone bringing a claim on this basis will win,” Richard Fox, employment partner at law firm Kingsley Napley, said.
Sarah Chilton, partner at law firm CM Murray, pointed out that it was Mr Casamitjana’s beliefs that were key in this case. “Employers and employees should be cautious not to draw blanket rules from one-off judgments. Veganism, for example, is adopted for different reasons, including individual preference, moral and ethical reasons, health reasons and environmental reasons. It’s the belief of the claimant which is important.”
The ruling comes after the same judge dismissed an earlier case last year brought by a vegetarian, arguing that vegetarianism was an opinion, not a belief. At the time he left the door open for a different approach to veganism, however, due to the fact it appeared to comprise a more homogenous set of principles.
“I’m extremely happy with the outcome of this hearing and for the words of the judge who clearly understood what ethical veganism is,” Mr Casamitjana said in a statement after the hearing.
“I am not alone. Many people have supported me because they, or their friends, have experienced discrimination for being ethical vegans. Hopefully, from my dismissal, something positive will come by ensuring other ethical vegans are better protected in the future.”
Following the ruling the case will move on to consider whether Mr Casamitjana’s dismissal, in April 2018, was unlawful.
Speaking after the hearing Rhys Wyborn, employment partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, who acted for the League Against Cruel Sports, said the league “did not contest the issue of whether ethical veganism itself should be a protected belief” and maintained that it was “irrelevant to the core reason for the dismissal”.
“The league is now looking ahead to the substantive hearing in this case and to addressing the reason for Mr Casamitjana’s dismissal, which it maintains was due to his misconduct and not the belief he holds,” he added.
The next stage of the hearing will be held in February.
