We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
22 January 2020
According to an employment tribunal in the widely reported case brought by Jordi Casamitjana, ethical veganism can be a philosophical belief that is protected under the Equality Act.(1) But what does this mean in practice for employers?
Ethical veganism goes beyond diet. Ethical vegans believe that it is morally wrong to harm or exploit animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. They may also be motivated by environmental concerns, but their central conviction is that exploiting animals is immoral and unethical. Alongside adopting a vegan diet, ethical vegans try to avoid other practices which exploit animals, such as wearing leather or silk or using products tested on animals.
The employment judge in this case was "satisfied overwhelmingly" that ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief, making it unlawful to discriminate against a person who holds that belief.
However, this result will not necessarily be the same in other cases. Some important points to consider are as follows:
The main areas affecting employers with regard to ethical veganism being protected are as follows.
Offensive jokes about ethical vegans can be just as unlawful as offensive jokes about religious beliefs. Employers should ensure that their policies cover this – although most policies will refer to "religion or belief", which would already encompass ethical veganism.
If employers provide food for employees, they should consider providing a vegan option for any ethical vegans. Under the current law, there is no absolute legal requirement to provide a vegan option or cater for any other diet based on religion or belief. This is because the provision of food tends to be regarded as a matter of indirect rather than direct discrimination (ie, a practice which applies to everyone equally, but which could put ethical vegans and those following particular diets for religious reasons at a particular disadvantage). Indirect discrimination is not unlawful if it can be justified, and what is justifiable will depend on the circumstances. Larger or well-resourced employers will find it harder to justify not providing a vegan option for ethical vegans. According to the Vegan Society, there were 600,000 vegans in the United Kingdom in 2019 and numbers are growing rapidly, meaning that all employers should bear in mind that a significant proportion of people are following plant-based diets.
Leather and toiletries
Ethical vegans may object to leather seating or toiletries tested on animals. As with the provision of food, not offering any alternatives could be indirect discrimination unless it can be justified.
Ethical vegans may object to investing in companies that exploit animals (eg, by conducting animal testing). Employers already face similar challenges with accommodating religious beliefs, such as beliefs about the charging of interest. Again, the provision of pensions and other benefits is generally regarded as an issue of indirect discrimination, so a lack of alternative provisions can potentially be justified, but many employers now offer ethical investment options.
Employers may now see more complaints from vegans about these issues and will need to be careful. If a vegan is treated badly for complaining that they have been discriminated against because of their vegan beliefs, this is likely to be unlawful victimisation. A person can claim victimisation even if their original complaint about discrimination was incorrect (unless this was a false allegation made in bad faith). An ethical vegan might not have actually suffered unlawful discrimination (eg, because their beliefs do not necessarily meet the required test or because the employer's position can be justified). Nevertheless, if that person complains about discrimination and is then treated badly, this may give them a victimisation claim.
If an employee behaves inappropriately in attempting to persuade colleagues to change their behaviour or beliefs, employers can take reasonable and proportionate disciplinary action. This is actually the real issue at stake in this case. Casamitjana was dismissed after drawing his colleagues' attention to what he regarded as unethical pension investments. The employer argued that Casamitjana had disobeyed a management instruction and was trying to inappropriately influence staff pension choices. Now that the question of whether ethical veganism can be a protected belief has been resolved, the case can proceed to looking at this much more difficult issue.
For further information on this topic please contact Gemma Taylor at Lewis Silkin by telephone (+44 20 7074 8000) or email (email@example.com). The Lewis Silkin website can be accessed at www.lewissilkin.com.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.