‘Ethical vegan’ fights landmark legal case
Ex-employee says League Against Cruel Sports fired him after he raised moral issue over its pension fund
Ethical veganism should become a philosophical belief that is legally protected from discrimination in the workplace, a landmark tribunal case is to hear. Jordi Casamitjana, an ethical vegan, has brought a claim against his former employer, the League Against Cruel Sports, whom he alleges fired him because he raised concerns that its pension fund was linked to animal testing firms. Ethical vegans oppose all forms of animal exploitation by not using products linked to animals.
ETHICAL veganism should become a philosophical belief that is legally protected from discrimination in the workplace, a landmark tribunal case is to hear.
Jordi Casamitjana, an ethical vegan, has brought a claim against his former employer, the League Against Cruel Sports, whom he alleges fired him because he raised concerns that its pension fund was being invested into companies involved in animal testing.
Unlike dietary vegans who just eat a plant-based diet, ethical vegans exclude all forms of animal exploitation by not wearing clothes made of wool or leather and not using products tested on animals.
Mr Casamitjana, who was dismissed from his role as head of policy at the charity in April 2018, is now pursuing a case of “direct discrimination” against the anti-hunting lobby group.
However, first he must prove that, under the 2010 Equality Act, ethical veganism constitutes a philosophical belief, which is one of nine protected characteristics under the law that includes age, disability, gender reassignment, race and religion. Views such as pacifism and supporting Scottish independence are also protected philosophical beliefs under the Act.
If successful, it will mean that bosses cannot discriminate against members of staff who identify as ethical vegans – meaning employees could refuse to wear certain uniforms depending on their material composition, or undertake certain duties linked to companies which support animal testing.
Mr Casamitjana, who grew up in Barcelona and moved to London in 2005, became an ethical vegan in 2001.
He practises ethical veganism so strictly that he does not allow anyone to bring non-vegan food into his home, nor does he travel short distances on public transport to avoid “accidental crashes with insects or birds that may occur when taking the bus”.
He also refuses to sit on leather seats, romantically date anyone who is not a vegan or eat figs, because of the “symbiotic relationship” the fruit has with wasps.
“You can therefore not be sure whether any of the wasps’ larvae is still inside the ripened fig and therefore I consider consumption of figs to be inconsistent with veganism,” he wrote in his witness statement to the court.
“Ethical veganism is now my creed and the ethical imperative in my life,” Mr Casamitjana said. “The way I treat my belief in ethical veganism is no different to the way those who practise a religion treat the rules which govern their religion.
“I believe that the arguments for veganism are so self-evidently correct and universally beneficial that eventually animal exploitation will be seen as so undesirable as to effectively bring it to an end, in much the same way that human slavery was eventually recognised as morally wrong after centuries of broad social acceptance.”
His case is supported by Prof Jeff Mcmahan, who teaches moral philosophy at Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
“To recognise ethical veganism as a protected philosophical belief would be entirely in accordance with the views of most professional or academic moral philosophers,” he wrote in his witness statement to the judge. “It is very clear to me that ethical veganism is a widespread and well-substantiated philosophical belief.
“It is far more widely discussed and accepted as correct among philosophers than pacifism, which I understand has a long history as a legally protected philosophical belief.”
‘It is very clear to me ethical veganism is a widespread and well-substantiated philosophical belief ’
The presiding judge on the case, which is due to be heard on Jan 3 at a Norwich employment tribunal, requested the legal documents be made public at a hearing in March due to the significant public interest in the matter.
Mr Casamitjana used his witness statement to highlight various everyday situations that ethical vegans are forced to compromise their beliefs because of the lack of societal choices.
These include being unable to use a vegan friendly bank, where money is not indirectly invested in companies that exploit animals, and dealing with pest infestations – such as cockroaches – without using “lethal methods”.
He said that ethical vegans face “different levels of discrimination”, adding: “In a progressive society aspiring to become more equal and protective of its citizens, I expect that the awareness of such discrimination will increase, and in the future vegans will be protected from unwelcome mockery, anti-social behaviour and unlawful discrimination.
“I really hope that the future of being an ethical vegan will not only be a health, responsible and helpful productive lifestyle option, but also a universally respected and safe one.”
A spokesman from the league said: “[We are] an inclusive employer and as this is a hearing to decide whether veganism should be a protected status, something which the league does not contest, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.”