Ethical veganism is a "philosophical belief" rules Tribunal

A Tribunal has determined that ethical veganism is a ‘philosophical belief’ and is capable of protection from discrimination.

Jordi Casamitjana, an ethical vegan, claims that he was treated less favourably by his employer because of his veganism. He alleges that he was unfairly dismissed by the animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) after he raised concerns that its pension fund was being invested in firms involved in animal testing. When his employer did not act on his concerns, he told his colleagues and was subsequently disciplined. 

Mr Casamitjana claims that the decision to dismiss him was because of his philosophical belief in veganism. Whilst Mr Casamitjana believes he has been discriminated against because of his beliefs, his employer is contesting the claim and asserts that Mr Casamitjana was dismissed for reasons of gross misconduct. Interestingly, LACS does not contest that veganism should be protected.

The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals against discrimination resulting from a ‘protected characteristic’. The Act counts ‘religion or belief’ as one of nine listed protected characteristics.

To qualify as a philosophical belief, veganism must:

• Be genuinely held. While it is not the Tribunal's function to assess the "validity" of a belief by some objective standard, evidence may be needed to establish that the belief is genuine;
• Be a belief, not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available;
• Be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
• Attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance;
• Be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others;
• Must "have a similar status or cogency to a religious belief". However, it need not "allude to a fully-fledged system of thought"; in other words, it does not need to be an "-ism".

The Tribunal’s ruling is a first instance decision and so does not have a binding effect on other Tribunals. It could act as an initial gateway for more actions of this type where such beliefs meet these criteria.

In terms of this specific case, Mr Casamitjana has been successful in showing veganism is a protected characteristic capable of protection from discrimination. However, he will now need to go on to show whether he was, in fact, directly discriminated against because of his vegan beliefs. 

In short, he will need to establish that his dismissal was because he was vegan and not merely some other factor connected to it. This may cause Mr Casamitjana some difficulty considering LACS “emphatically rejects” that this is the case and denies that there is any link between his dismissal and his veganism. If Mr Casamitjana is not able to show his veganism was the reason for the treatment then his claim will fail.

Given that veganism can qualify for legal protection as a ‘philosophical belief’, employers should understand that they could be legally exposed if they do not take such beliefs seriously. Where an employee mocks someone else’s religion, sex or race, for example, an employer would be expected to take reasonable action against this behaviour. The case is no different where an employee makes derogatory remarks about vegans. An employer will still have the same responsibility to take appropriate action, otherwise it may face the risk of a claim for discrimination.

If you would like advice on protected characteristics in employment law then please contact the employment team.