Vegetarian and vegan diets are increasingly popular in the U.K., with the Vegetarian Society estimating that 5% of the population are vegan or vegetarian. In fact, over a third of people are considering adopting a plant-based diet. But what does the law say about the rights of this growing group and the rights of others?
The Vegetarian Society gives three main reasons why people choose a vegetarian or vegan diet: planet, health, and animals. Global farm-to-plate food production is responsible for 26% of global greenhouse gas emissions. However, eating a plant-based diet is estimated to reduce emissions by 60%.
Additionally, a vegetarian diet requires less water and land usage by a similar amount. Regarding health, some studies suggest that vegetarian diets lead to longer lives due to their higher fibre and lower saturated fat contents.
HR First- Employment dispute services – Navigating complex workplace disputes.
In fact the National Institute of Health in the U.S. states that vegetarian diets offer benefits in avoiding cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and even dementia. Lastly, welfare groups have expressed concern about the treatment of animals in the modern meat industry.
Employers may be surprised to know that employment tribunals have considered cases of discrimination for vegetarian and vegan diets.
The first two protected traits in U.K. discrimination law were sex and race; however, over time legislation has protected more characteristics, culminating in the Equality Act 2010. This act provides protection against discrimination for many protected traits, including religion or belief.
However, the act does not state whether vegetarianism or veganism are protected beliefs. Instead, case law has developed the so-called Grainger criteria to define what qualifies. These criteria stipulate that a belief must be:
As such, the manner in which a belief is held is crucial for receiving protected status, leading to a distinction between vegetarianism and ethical veganism in case law.
In the case of Mr G Conisbee v Crossley Farms Limited, Mr Conisbee’s vegetarianism was not found to be a protected trait. They found that vegetarianism was a lifestyle choice but not a weighty and substantial part of human life.
Additionally, given the many reasons to be vegetarian, the tribunal found that vegetarianism lacked the cogency and cohesion required.
They also noted that some M.P.s had voiced that they did not consider vegetarianism a belief when drafting the Equality Act 2010.
By contrast, the case of Mr J Casamitjana Costa vs The League Against Cruel Sports did find ethical veganism to be a protected characteristic. Ethical veganism, a subset of veganism, dedicates itself to avoiding all forms of animal exploitation.
Mr Costa, a zoologist and activist, was able to demonstrate how this was a weighty and substantial aspect of his life. In addition to strictly avoiding all animal products, he had dedicated his career to ending animal cruelty.
The claimant avoided sitting on leather seats or even taking the bus when he could, to protect birds and insects. To support his argument, Costa also linked his vegan beliefs to ancient Indian philosophies and religions.
In recent years, an increasing number of beliefs have been tested at the employment tribunal. Regarding transgenderism, the belief that sex is immutable (i.e., gender-critical beliefs) was originally found to be unprotected in Maya Forstater vs CGD Europe in 2019.
This was on the grounds that this belief is not compatible with human dignity. However, this was overruled at appeal in 2021, giving this belief protected status.
Political issues have also been considered. The belief that climate change is man-made and must be acted on was protected in 2010 in Tim Nicholson vs Grainger Limited.
Additionally, anti-Zionism was found to be protected in Miller vs University of Bristol in 2023. The same year rejection of critical race theory or ‘wokeism’ was protected. A belief in Scottish independence is also protected. English ethno-nationalism, however, was rejected as a protected belief under the final Grainger criteria.
Nonetheless, whilst workers have a right to hold beliefs, this does not extend to a right to always manifest them at work.
In particular, this is relevant when this contradicts with a company’s goal to include all employees.
For example, misgendering transgender colleagues based on gender critical beliefs was not found to be protected in Dr David Macherath vs The Department of Work and Pensions, 2022.
When considering a protected trait, employers should take note of the four types of discrimination und the Equality Act 2010:
Need help with employee disputes? Learn more about our employment dispute services.
Running a business is challenging, managing people shouldn’t be. Whether you need fully outsourced HR or support for your in-house team, we’ll make HR simple, compliant, and stress-free. Let’s find the solution that fits your business.
Ask your HR Question below.