Casamitjana v The League Against Cruel Sports

Home » News & Knowledge » Casamitjana v The League Against Cruel Sports – Legal Landmark Case

An example of a broadminded society.

Introduction

The case of Casamitjana v The League Against Cruel Sports (‘LACS’), submitted to the Employment Tribunal in 2018, marked a significant milestone in the realm of Employment law and highlighted the intersection of ethical beliefs and workplace discrimination.

This ground-breaking ruling recognised ethical veganism as a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA 2010’), setting a precedent that has far-reaching implications for individuals who hold deeply held ethical convictions.

Casamitjana

Background

Mr Jordi Casamitjana, an ‘ethical vegan’, was employed by The LACS, an organisation committed to combating animal cruelty.

Casamitjana claimed that he was unfairly dismissed for disclosing that the organisation’s pension fund was being invested in companies involved in animal testing. He argued that his dismissal constituted discrimination based on his ethical veganism belief.

The Case

The central question before the Employment Tribunal was whether ethical veganism could be classified as a protected philosophical belief under the EqA 2010. This classification would determine whether Casamitjana was entitled to protection against discrimination based on his ethical veganism.

Protected Philosophical Belief

The Employment Tribunal examined the criteria for a belief to be considered protected under the EqA 2010.

Under the EqA 2010 there are nine protected characteristics for which it is illegal to discriminate against. These are: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; race; pregnancy and maternity; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. The case in hand concerns “religion or belief” as per section 10.

The legislation is drafted in an open-ended manner but there is a five-point test for determining when a philosophical belief is a protected characteristic, the belief:

Must be genuinely held;
Must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available;
Must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
Must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance;
Must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

In what was considered a fairly shocking ruling, it determined that ethical veganism met the necessary legal standards to be classified as a philosophical belief.

The tribunal ruled that ethical veganism was a belief that was genuinely held, was more than a mere opinion or viewpoint, was based on a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour, and attained a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance.

The judgment recognised ethical veganism as a belief that had the potential to affect and influence how a person lives their life.

The case drew a distinction between the varying conceptual commitments to veganism. Casamitjana’s belief in veganism goes much further than what people perceive veganism to be (namely a dietary restriction and this helps distinguish the case from Conisbee v Crossley Farms Ltd and Ors in which the claim of vegetarianism as a protected characteristic failed).

His fundamental belief is “ethical veganism”. This means that along with not eating or wearing any animal products, Casamitijana is also conscious of veganism in every aspect of his life. One such example is that he will choose only to walk, rather than taking any form of public transport, as such methods of transport are more likely to kill insects.

In an attempt to further solidify his beliefs to the public, following the judgment, Casamitjana went on LBC radio and discussed it further with host-at-the-time, Andrew Castle. A number of questions were put to him including “would you ever kiss a non-vegan?”. He replied:

“I would say [it] depends what the kiss means but I would say I wouldn’t have a date a non-vegan. I will never have a relationship with a non-vegan. I will never live in a house with a non-vegan but sometimes a kiss might be a nice thing to do for somebody that needs it.”

Eventually, Casamitjana settled his case against his former employer and it did not proceed to a final hearing due to withdrawal by the claimant due to settlement. The terms relating to financial compensation are confidential to the parties who, in their settlement, agreed to the release of the following statement through the Tribunal:

“As has been the subject of extensive media coverage, between 2018 and 2020 we were involved in Employment Tribunal litigation brought by our former employee Jordi Casamitjana.

“We are happy to make clear that Mr Casamitjana was a very valued employee of the League during the two periods he worked with us, showing a great deal of professionalism, expertise and commitment to the protection of animals

“The only reason for the dismissal of Mr Casamitjana in 2018 was his communications to his colleagues in relation to our pension arrangements. Having revisited the issue we now accept that Mr Casamitjana did nothing wrong with such communications, which were motivated by his belief in ethical veganism.

“We are grateful to Mr Casamitjana for having raised the issue of pensions to us, which allowed us to change our default pension fund to an ethical one closer to our values.”

Significance and Legacy

The Casamitjana case has significant implications for individuals with ethical or philosophical beliefs that shape their way of life. By recognising ethical veganism as a protected philosophical belief, the ruling provides legal protection against discrimination and unfair treatment in the workplace for ethical vegans.

This landmark decision sets a precedent for future cases involving discrimination based on philosophical beliefs. It emphasises that the law should not only protect religious beliefs but also respect and accommodate deeply held ethical convictions.

The ruling also sheds light on the importance of fostering inclusivity and diversity in the workplace. Employers are now obligated to make reasonable accommodations for employees with protected philosophical beliefs, ensuring they are not subjected to discrimination or disadvantage because of their convictions.

Furthermore, the case has raised awareness about ethical veganism and other ethical beliefs. It has sparked discussions surrounding the rights of individuals with strong convictions and the need for workplaces to be inclusive and respectful of diverse perspectives.

Conclusion

The Casamitjana v The LACS case stands as a significant milestone in Employment Law, recognising ethical veganism as a protected philosophical belief. This ruling sets a precedent for individuals who hold deeply held ethical convictions and ensures legal protection against discrimination in the workplace.

The case emphasises the need for inclusivity and respect for diverse beliefs in professional environments. Employers are now required to make reasonable accommodations for employees with protected philosophical beliefs, fostering an inclusive work culture.

The legacy of the Casamitjana case extends beyond the realm of employment law, as it has sparked broader conversations about the rights of individuals with ethical beliefs and the importance of recognising and accommodating diverse perspectives.

This landmark ruling paves the way for a more inclusive society that values and respects the ethical convictions of its members.

Read our three previous articles in this series here:

British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell

Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd – Legal Landmark Case