Ethical veganism Owen v Willow Tower OPCO 1 Ltd [2023]

In the case of Owen v Willow Tower OPCO 1 Ltd [2023], an employment tribunal has found that a claimant's alleged belief in ethical veganism was not genuinely held and therefore was not a protected belief under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.

The claimant worked as bank staff in a residential care home. She also worked for herself as a Foot Health Practitioner and she often provided services to the care home.

In June 2021, the care home decided that all staff should be vaccinated against COVID-19 (before this was a legal requirement). In August 2021, the claimant, who had not been vaccinated raised a grievance. She explained that she followed a vegan diet and believed that she was exempt from the vaccine. She also raised concerns about the efficacy of the vaccine and unknown side-effects. She was, therefore, referred to occupational health who advised there was no medical condition or reason to stop the claimant from being vaccinated. The grievance was not upheld. As she did not have a valid exemption, she was dismissed on 12 November 2021, after the legal requirement for staff in Care Quality Commission registered care homes to be vaccinated had come into force pursuant to the Health and Social Care Act. She claimed unfair dismissal and religion or belief discrimination.

A preliminary hearing was held, which:

1. Held that she had not acquired the necessary continuity of employment to bring a claim of unfair dismissal.
2. Included determination of the nature of the claimant’s belief. The tribunal accepted the description of ethical veganism set out in earlier case law. However, on the evidence, it did not accept that the claimant held that belief to the extent required.

The question for the tribunal was whether the claimant adduced enough evidence that she held her belief in ethical veganism and she needed to demonstrate the genuineness of her belief rather than merely stating she had this belief. It accepted that the claimant followed a vegan diet and avoided using some non-vegan products. However, she could not remember when she started to hold a belief in ethical veganism. Other than her diet and use of some products which was not enough, she failed to explain how she had changed or structured her life to follow her belief. She stated that she did not wear leather, but she did not expand on this either. It also appeared inconsistent with the extent of the belief argued that she used products (via wearing gloves) in the care home that were not vegan, and very few of the documentation she had created for her grievances and the tribunal referred to ethical veganism or described what that, in fact, was. Her main criticisms of the vaccine appeared not to be connected to veganism but that it was experimental and may contravene health and safety legislation. The tribunal therefore held that, ‘without more’, it could not find that she genuinely held a belief in ethical veganism and dismissed her discrimination claim.

To speak to a member of our Employment team, please call 01689 887 887.