When first introduced, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 prohibited direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimization and harassment in the workplace by reason of any ‘religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief’.
The wording was subsequently amended by the Equality Act 2006, which removed the word ‘similar’ so that protection was afforded by reason of ‘any religion, religious or philosophical belief’.
The Equality Act 2010, which came into force on 1 October 2010, retained this definition.
The removal of the need for claimants to prove that a philosophical belief they hold is similar in nature to a religious belief extended protection to those holding a wide range of
beliefs.
Guidance on the criteria for determining whether or not a particular belief is protected was established in Nicholson v Grainger plc, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that belief in climate change did constitute a philosophical belief.
In a further case, Joe Hashman, a vegan animal rights campaigner with a fervent belief that fox hunting and hare coursing are wrong, brought a claim that he had been unfairly dismissed from his job at a garden centre in 2009 on account of his beliefs.
A pre-hearing review established that a belief in the sanctity of life is a philosophical belief for the purposes of the 2003 legislation and Mr Hashman’s claim could therefore proceed.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) heard that Mr Hashman was employed at the Orchard Park Garden Centre in Dorset, where he cultivated a demonstration vegetable patch to encourage customers to grow their own produce.
The owners of Orchard Park, farmers Sheila and Ron Clarke, are keen supporters of the South and West Wiltshire Hunt. Shortly before Mr Hashman was dismissed, they discovered that he had appeared as a witness in two prosecutions under the Hunting Act 2004.
The dismissal also occurred shortly after the death of the manager of the farm, Andrew Prater, in an accident at a local agricultural show. Mr Prater was also connected with the Hunt and had recognised Mr Hashman as an anti-hunt demonstrator.
On the day of Mr Prater’s funeral, Mr and Mrs Clarke told Mr Hashman not to return to work as the vegetable patch idea was being shelved.
Mr Hashman claimed that he had been dismissed because of his anti-hunting beliefs.
Mr and Mrs Clarke claimed that his dismissal was because the vegetable patch was not economically viable and that his views on hunting played no part in the decision.
On the facts of the case, the ET upheld Mr Hashman’s claim. He has accepted an undisclosed sum in settlement, and a public apology for comments made about him in a memo that had been sent to other members of staff.
Contact us for advice on any discrimination matter.
Posted by Peter Nicholas on Wednesday, February 01, 2012 at 01:22 PM