Lucinda Bromfield: Belief in the sanctity of life protected by anti-discrimination legislation

In Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Ltd an Employment Tribunal held that a belief in the sanctity of life, including the lives of animals, was a ‘philosophical belief’ and protected under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Therefore the employee was protected from being treated less favourably because of their philosophical belief.

The employee in this case was a fervent anti-hunting activist. He had been involved in animal welfare issues since he was 13 when he attended his first animal rights demonstration. He had been actively involved in animal rights issues for 30 years and was an active member of the Hunt Saboteurs Association and a committed vegan.

The Tribunal followed the test set out in Grainger (the case which decided that belief in climate change could be a protected belief). The test states that:

1. A belief has to be genuinely held; and
2. it must be a belief, not an opinion or a viewpoint; and
3. it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; and
4. it must be able to attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and
5. it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates. Facebook This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Work Email Keep up with the latest in HR... This field is hidden when viewing the form Optin_form This field is hidden when viewing the form Optin_date Year Month Day This field is hidden when viewing the form Batch_Newsletter

In both the Grainger and Hashman cases, the employees had incorporated their beliefs in to their lives in practical ways. This gives some comfort to employers and suggests that for a belief to be protected, it must have a significant impact on how an employee chooses to live his or her life.

Interestingly, the successful claimant was represented before the tribunal by a barrister by the name of Mr Hare – you couldn’t make it up.

This information is believed to be correct as of the date published. It is not a substitute for legal advice and no liability attaches to its use. Specific and personal legal advice should be taken on any individual matter.

Lucinda Bromfield

Lucinda Bromfield, Employment Specialist, Bevans Solicitors

Lucinda Bromfield is an employment specialist at Bevans, advising on all aspects of employment law and alternative dispute resolution. Before becoming a solicitor she had experience of working in compliance and HR for large private and public sector organizations. She is a qualified mediator and has a particular interest in the role of effective communication and HR in building sustainable, profitable businesses.

• Lucinda Bromfield

  

  Wednesday, June 29, 2011

  Lucinda Bromfield: Orders from the top
• Lucinda Bromfield

  

  Tuesday, June 28, 2011

  Lucinda Bromfield: Should we compromise?
• Lucinda Bromfield

  

  Friday, June 24, 2011

  Lucinda Bromfield: The concept of ‘reasonable’
• Lucinda Bromfield

  

  Tuesday, March 22, 2011

  Lucinda Bromfield: Watch what you tweet