Ms S Free Miles v The Royal Veterinary College — 2022

The claimant was a veterinary nurse employed by the Royal Veterinary College from August 2015. The tribunal accepted that, from the start of employment, the respondent knew she held ethical vegan beliefs and generally had no difficulty with those beliefs, including by accommodating her use of a shared fridge. The case arose after her arrest on 6 February 2019 and police enquiries linking her to possible farm burglaries and thefts, followed by a disciplinary process concerning the turkey found in her flat, damage to the accommodation, social media posts about animals treated at the hospital, and her association with animal-rights activity.

On the philosophical belief discrimination claims, the tribunal applied the Grainger criteria, Article 9 authorities, and Page v NHS Trust Development Authority. It held that a belief that humans should not eat, wear, use for sport, experiment on or profit from animals would have been capable of protection, but the claimant's stated belief went further because it included trespass, removal of animals, and acting contrary to the law. On that basis, the tribunal found that the unlawful element of the belief was not worthy of respect in a democratic society and was not protected under section 10 EA 2010. It also found that the respondent acted because of the claimant's conduct and objectionable manifestations, not because she held the belief itself.

The indirect discrimination complaint also failed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent applied a practice of dismissing employees who were known or believed to be actively engaged in supporting trespass and the removal of suffering animals, and that such a practice could disadvantage people holding the claimant's broader asserted belief. However, it found no evidence that the practice disadvantaged people who simply believed that humans should not eat, wear, use for sport, experiment on or profit from animals. In any event, the tribunal held that the respondent's aim of protecting its interests, staff, reputation, and working relationships with abattoirs, food producers, and animal-research partners was legitimate, and that the practice would have been proportionate.

The unfair dismissal complaint was rejected because the tribunal found the respondent had conducted as much investigation as was reasonable, had reasonable grounds for its conclusions, and acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant. It noted that the disciplinary process resulted in allegations 1 and 4 not being upheld, allegation 2 being upheld on appeal as misconduct rather than gross misconduct, allegation 3 being upheld as misconduct, and allegations 5 and 6 being upheld as gross misconduct. The appeal was heard by Professor Ken Smith on 7 September 2020 and the dismissal was upheld on 18 September 2020. The wrongful dismissal / breach of contract claim also failed because the tribunal found the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct and a repudiatory breach of contract, entitling the respondent to summary dismissal without notice.