The claimant left his position as a waiter after he had been shouted at in front of customers in relation to how he was dressed.  The case centred upon his vegetarianism and the Employment Tribunal had to determine, at a preliminary hearing, whether vegetarianism was a protected characteristic.  The issue with the vegetarianism was that the Claimant alleged that he had been given snacks that had been laced with meat, such as pudding including gelatine or a croissant basted in duck fat.

The Claimant’s argument was based upon Section 4 and 10 of the Equality Act 2010 which states covers religion or philosophical belief.   There was also reference to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  Indeed, in R v Secretary of State for Education & Employment, ex parte Williamson it was held that vegetarianism was a belief that fell within the remit of Article 9.    The respondent’s arguments were based upon the meaning of belief, noting that it does not include opinions or viewpoints and that it must have similar status to a religious belief.

The Tribunal decided that vegetarianism was not a protected characteristic as it does not relate to human life and behaviour but is better viewed as a lifestyle choice.  Quite interestingly, Judge Postle made a distinction between vegetarianism and veganism. He noted that there could be a myriad of reasons why one would become a vegetarian but for veganism there is a greater degree of cogency and cohesion in that belief.   This may leave the door open for a claim based upon veganism in the future.  As a result, the claimant’s claim for discrimination was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the remit of discrimination cases that may be brought based upon religious or other philosophical beliefs.   It must be noted that this was based upon the English legislation which does not include political opinion as a protected characteristic, which is protected in Northern Ireland. This would have, invariably, given the claimant more force to his argument that his rights as a vegetarian should be protected. This may be especially true with the links that have recently been made with vegetarianism and climate change. It is likely that these issues will face the Tribunal in years to come and it would be interesting to see the extent to which the outcome would differ in Northern Ireland. 
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-g-conisbee-v-crossley-farms-ltd-and-others-3335357-2018