Balancing Beliefs

• Published date: 01 August 2023
• Law Firm: Littler Mendelson
• Author: Josephine Rendall-Neal

With the increasing number of employees in the UK bringing claims for discrimination on grounds of their beliefs, it is crucial for employers to be up to date on developments and take time to consider how they can foster an environment of tolerance and inclusion to help prevent such issues arising. In this article, we examine three recent cases:

1. Owen v. Willow Tower Opco 1 Ltd ET/2400073/2022 - an employee's ethical veganism did not meet the test for a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010.
2. Higgs v. Farmor's School and another [2023] EAT 89 - appeal upheld and remitted back to tribunal to decide afresh as the tribunal had failed to appropriately consider the employee's rights to free thought and free speech under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
3. Forstater v. CGD Europe and others ET/2200909/2019 - at a remedies hearing Ms. Forstater was awarded '105,778.47 for her successful claim of direct discrimination and victimisation on grounds of philosophical belief.

Owen v. Willow Tower Opco

The employee was a care home worker. During the pandemic, she argued that her veganism exempted her from the requirement to be vaccinated. Ms. Owen was dismissed after an occupational health report confirmed that there was no medical reason she could not be vaccinated, and she persisted in refusing the vaccine even after a law came into force which mandated it for her role at the time.

Ms. Owen brought a discrimination claim on the grounds of her philosophical belief in ethical veganism. Although ethical veganism has been previously held to be a protected belief, the tribunal found that on the facts Ms. Owen's belief was not held to the extent required to be protected. It was not enough to say she was an ethical vegan; she needed to demonstrate that she genuinely held that belief. For example, Ms. Owen said that she used non-vegan products, but wore gloves while doing so, which the tribunal found "inconsistent with the extent of the belief" required in previous case law for ethical veganism to be held as a protected belief. She could not speak to any effect what her belief had on her travel, clothing, holidays, or whether she ate honey or figs. The tribunal noted that "it was only when it was pointed out to her that she said she did not wear leather, but she did not expand on that and shrugged when she was asked about wool."

Takeaway

Although decided based on unusual facts, this case is reassuring for employers in showing where the line can be drawn...