X v University of Manchester and 1 other — 2025

The claimant, a former employee of the University of Manchester who was auto-enrolled in and then opted out of the Universities Superannuation Scheme, brought a claim of indirect discrimination on the grounds of his belief in ethical veganism. He alleged that neither respondent made an ethical vegan pension fund available to him during his employment. The respondents applied to strike out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, or alternatively for a deposit order under rule 39.

Employment Judge Barker, taking the claimant's case at its highest, found that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success against either respondent. In relation to the first respondent, offering the claimant a vegan pension scheme or self-investment option would, due to the exclusivity rule, prevent other staff from joining the Scheme; excluding the rest of the workforce on that basis was found to be disproportionate, so there was no reasonable prospect of establishing that continued enrolment of staff into the Scheme was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. In relation to the second respondent, its investment duties were heavily prescribed by law with very narrow discretion, the circumstances in which trustees may consider non-financial factors did not arise, and Schedule 22 of the Equality Act 2010 operated to prevent acts done in accordance with statutory obligations from being discriminatory.

The Tribunal further noted that no vegan-suitable fund existed on the market, and the second respondent's function did not extend to creating pension schemes from scratch. The claim was accordingly struck out. The judge also granted the claimant an anonymity order under Rule 49.