To think this sets a dangerous precedent? Ethical veganism is philosophical belief and is protected by law.

[AlternativePerspective]

Ethical veganism is 'philosophical belief' www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

Now, I’m not saying that how someone lives their life shouldn’t be protected. But in this instance the man was dismissed because he found out the pension funds his employers invested in supported animal testing, and then started to spread the word about them.

That was why he was dismissed and that shouldn’t be supported.

After all where does it end? Someone who is a philosophical vegan objects to workmates eating ham sandwiches at their desks so their belief trumps others’ right? Should they be able to demand that someone who needs an assistance dog not be allowed to bring it into work on the basis their beliefs state that it is unethical to keep any animal for any purpose?

Isn’t it just time people lived out their own beliefs for themselves without feeling they should have the right to make others compensate for their beliefs? And I would apply that to any kind of belief system....

I don't see why religious beliefs should be protected more than any others?

his conduct with regards to his pension possibly being gross misconduct.

How could it be any sort of misconduct if he simply made people aware of the pension funds being invested in companies doing animal testing?

Even if he put adverts on the sides of buses, any harm to the employers' reputation would be down to their own doing.

It makes more sense to me than the protection of Religious beliefs.

A solicitor said to us that this case will be used in and he used the example of dispatching foxes. If it is your ethical belief that foxes need shooting then you will not be successfully prosecuted.

Jolyon Maugham's advice?

This is why he’s brought the case - look at the wording that the company used in his dismissal letter:

The league insists Casamitjana, who has crowdfunded his legal action, was dismissed for gross misconduct. His dismissal letter told him that his actions were “biased because of your ethical principles and could influence them [other employees] to change their pension arrangement”. Casamitjana’s lawyers will claim this confirms that the league recognised that his ethical veganism was a genuinely held belief, rather than simply a viewpoint.

Full article here:

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/dec/29/ethical-vegan-jordi-casamitjana-protected-status-court-tribunal

It makes more sense to me than the protection of Religious beliefs

IMHO neither make any sense. To my mind, protection's best reserved for inherent things which can't be changed - race, sex, disability and so on - rather than those which are pure choices

And religion and diet are certainly choices (with the exception, perhaps, of medical issues relating to food)

Some of these posts are absolutely ridiculous.

Not wanting someone eating ham around you and not wanting to fund animal testing are two very different things and will remain two very different things. Don’t be daft.

Regardless of the claimant's ethical veganism, I think it's completely reasonable to expect his employer, an animal rights organisation, not to invest funds in companies that test on animals and for employees to be aware that that is what they did. In terms of gross misconduct, what the claimant said and how he said it will be crucial.

Is the League Against Cruel sports an animal rights organisation?

Oh dear, another one I can't ever support then.

The League Against Cruel Sports is opposed to cruelty to animals. The clue's in the name. 🙄

They're a peaceful campaigning organisation. They don't actually disrupt hunts like sabs do but they do monitor hunts. If they have video evidence of illegal activity then they pass it to the police.

This judgment hasn’t changed the law. Employment lawyers have known for years that veganism is potentially capable of being protected under the Equality Act - if the relevant factors pertaining to belief are met, which here, they were. In a similar way, obesity is capable of being protected if the test for disability is met. However neither veganism or obesity are protected in their own right and this doesn’t mean every vegan is protected.

So, for example, could a worker on a supermarket checkout refuse to put a meat product through the till?

No - suggestions up thread that reasonable adjustments could come into play are incorrect as reasonable adjustments only apply to disability. They do not apply to any other protected characteristics.

In this situation they would have to say the handling of meat was indirect discrimination as it negatively and disproportionately impacts them as a vegan. However, it is only discrimination if the employer can’t objectively justify the practice. In a supermarket it’s fairly obvious customers will want to buy meat so it would be fairly easy to justify the requirement - hence it would not be discrimination and if a vegan employee refused to touch meat or dairy then they could be lawfully dismissed.

They’d also be batshit to take that job in the first place...

if you work for the League Against Cruel Sports my guess is that you have animal welfare at the heart of your life. If you then found out that your pension fund was being invested in companies that harm animals I'm guessing you would be a tad upset. I know I would.

So the point is that they should know they are likely to employ people who have animal welfare front and centre, so it's probably not a surprise that they have more than one vegan in the company. Vegans don't just shun food with animal components, it is a way of life and it's fairly well known that is so.

So the League Against Cruel Sports, IMO, were completely in the wrong to invest their pension funds like that without giving their employees the chance to withdraw their own portion, or stipulate that their portion wasn't to be used in that way. They are completely out of order doing that.

The fact that the whistleblower is a very extreme form of vegan is, IMO, neither here nor there. In fact since vegans get so much shit if they so much as step on an ant (see the current vegan threads in AIBU) it's refreshing to see that someone really does embrace it fully. (after all, he's not insisting everyone follow his type of veganism)

I'm happy for someone who informs their employer about such beliefs upfront, or is very open about them, to be protected in the law in this way.

I think it’s about bloody time!

We all have to respect people’s religious views based on make believe nonsense that has caused wars, death and misery for thousands of years, so of course vegan isn’t should be protected by law.

I am confused why people think he should have been sacked for explaining how people’s money was being invested in unethical companies- surely this should be celebrated?!
It’s about time corporations are held accountable for their actions and it’s only right people know where their money is going.
Wake up people!!!

*veganism not vegan isn’t
Stupid auto correct.

Who gets to decide 'ethics' though? Personally I am fine with licensed animal testing for medicines, but not for cosmetics, for example.

Who gets to decide 'ethics' though? Personally I am fine with licensed animal testing for medicines, but not for cosmetics, for example.

The problem here is that the ethics of the pension fund investments are completely at odds with the purpose and ethics of the organisation itself (and by extension, at least some of the people who work there). Then there's the problem of a lack of transparency to let employees know about this discrepancy.

We just have a defined contribution scheme where I work, so the employer isn't involved other than paying over the money. I think individuals can choose their own fund, whether anyone does is another thing

I am confused why people think he should have been sacked for explaining how people’s money was being invested in unethical companies- surely this should be celebrated?!

I didn't think anyone has said he should be sacked? We don't know the full circumstances as that part of the tribunal hasn't happened yet, but for now I can't help thinking it might be down to how objections were phrased ... so while a sensible "should we be investing here?" may have been acceptable, something like "they're a bunch of unprincipled b**tards" plastered over social media probably wouldn't be

Obviously I can't possibly know if that's what happened though, and no doubt the details will become public in time

Vegan here and I don't see the issue really.

Oh and this x 10...Meanwhile if you believe a woman can't have a penis you are a bigot.

Meanwhile if you believe a woman can't have a penis you are a bigot

When will everyone and their dog stop expecting to be compensated for everything in life that doesn’t suit them. This is ridiculous and not progressive in any way. What a waste of time and money to pursue this nonsense. Life style and ideals change over time, protection of lifestyle choice is laughable.

When will everyone and their dog stop expecting to be compensated for everything in life that doesn’t suit them. This is ridiculous and not progressive in any way. What a waste of time and money to pursue this nonsense. Life style and ideals change over time, protection of lifestyle choice is laughable. I love you.

Veganism is a more logical belief than that in any deity or alleged prophet. Expecting others to subscribe to the same viewpoint is just as problematic, though.

It's no more dangerous than people who expect special treatment for believing in magical sky pixies.

In fairness, asserting that sex is biologically determined isn't a belief, it's a scientific fact. That's isn't reassuring when courts are ruling against people who assert that fact, though. Dismissing "sex is biology" as a philosophical belief is on a par with suggesting that "Earth is spheroidal" is also a philosophical belief.