Miss Bewley, Counsel. For all the v Mr D Chapman, solicitor — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Postle. The claimant, a vegetarian, had brought complaints on grounds of religion and belief and a claim for notice pay, but the tribunal noted he had insufficient service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal accepted that he genuinely held his belief in vegetarianism, but the issue was whether vegetarianism itself could amount to a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.

Applying the statutory belief criteria discussed in the parties' authorities, the tribunal held that vegetarianism was an opinion or viewpoint rather than a belief capable of protection. It found vegetarianism was more accurately a lifestyle choice and did not relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour in the required sense. The tribunal also concluded that vegetarianism lacked the level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance needed for protection, noting that vegetarians adopt the practice for a range of different reasons.

The tribunal accepted that vegetarianism was worthy of respect in a democratic society and not incompatible with human dignity, but held that this was not enough on its own. It distinguished veganism as having a clearer cohesion of belief. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the claim that vegetarianism is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal also dealt with jurisdictional objections. It dismissed the claims against the third, fourth and fifth respondents because the ACAS Early Conciliation certificates named only their first names and that was not treated as a minor error. The claim against the third respondent was also held to be out of time, because the alleged incident occurred in June or July 2018, ACAS Early Conciliation was started on 23 November 2018, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. No monetary remedy was awarded.