Latest: Dec. 24, 2018
Reduction of extended target
I am very pleased to announce we have recently received very generous donations from individuals and organisations which have allowed me to revise down our extended target from £40,000 to &po...Read more
Who am I?
My name is Jordi Casamitjana and I am a whistleblower.
I am an Ethical Vegan who was dismissed by an Animal Welfare charity after I blew the whistle that their pension fund was being invested in companies involved in animal testing.
Most of my adult life I have pursued the philosophy of ethical veganism. It has informed my daily existence, including my career and employment.
In September 2016, I returned to work at a prominent animal welfare charity that I had worked for some years before. I was enrolled in the charity’s pension. But I discovered that the pension was investing in companies, including pharmaceutical and tobacco companies, who are known to engage in animal testing.
I raised this with my employer as their investment in such companies was directly contradictory to the reason for the existence and values of the organisation. At first they agreed with me and stated that the pension fund would be changed, then they told to all staff that the pension had been changed to an ethical fund, then admitted to me but not to all my colleagues that it hadn’t been changed, and finally they stated that I could personally change mine. At my request they sent an email around to staff which gave only one ethical fund alternative, which offered worse rates of return than some of the other ethical pension funds that were also available.
When I wrote to my colleagues to tell them that their pension was being invested in non-ethical funds, and that there were alternatives to the single alternative that the company was suggesting, I was sacked. I was given no appeal hearing.
Background to my case?
Originally from Catalonia, but resident in the UK for several decades, I am a Zoologist specialising in animal behaviour (Ethologist), who has been involved in different aspects of animal protection for over 20 years.
In addition to scientific research I have worked mostly as an investigator, animal welfare consultant and animal protection campaigner, both freelance and for many reputable animal advocacy organisations in different countries.
My most notable work has been my involvement with the first successful prosecutions under the Hunting Act 2004 (when working for the League Against Cruel Sports), the exposé of trail hunting as a false alibi (when working for IFAW) and my participation in the campaign that led to the ban on bullfighting in Catalonia (as a consultant of PROU).
I have been an ethical vegan for over seventeen years, and it is as an ethical vegan that I live all aspects of my life as far as this is reasonably practical. This means that I do not eat, wear or consume any animal products.
Why does this case matter?
- Donors to animal protection charities have the right to expect that the money they donate will be invested in a way which is compatible with their beliefs. The investment of charitable funds in companies that test on animals is a betrayal of the trust placed in those charities by their donors.
- Whistleblowers have the right not to be dismissed because they have blown the whistle. Where this happens in supposedly ethical organisations, it is all the more egregious.
- The philosophical belief in ethical veganism has not yet been tested before the UK courts. All the signs are that the courts will accept that it is a belief worthy of protection under the Equality Act 2010. My case will put that to the test.
I have instructed Bindmans LLP, a firm known for bringing and winning important whistleblowing and discrimination claims. Bindmans acted for Joe Hashman in his philosophical belief discrimination claim which established that the belief in the sanctity of animal life was protected under the Equality Act 2010.
My claim will be that as a result of raising protected disclosures, I suffered a series of detriments, and that the decision to dismiss me was discriminatory on the grounds of my philosophical belief.
How much am I raising and why?
I am seeking to raise £5,000 initially to cover the drafting of the pleadings and collation of the evidence. But in order to continue to bring the claim I ultimately need to raise £40,000.
Please contribute and share this page to help me reach as wide an audience of potential contributors as possible.
Dec. 24, 2018
Reduction of extended target
I am very pleased to announce we have recently received very generous donations from individuals and organisations which have allowed me to revise down our extended target from £40,000 to £13,000. This means that we have already crossed the 50% milestone!.
I am very touched by all the help I am receiving from so many people (vegans and non-vegans alike), many of whom I know are struggling financially but yet they still wanted to contribute.
Among those supporting my case I have to especially thank the Vegan Society, who are supporting the philosophical belief hearing (whilst taking no stance on the overall tribunal). Their support shows that this case has the capacity to improve the recognition of ethical veganism as a coherent, developed and increasingly well supported philosophy, and also to confirm that the needs of vegans in their employment and their everyday lives must be taken seriously.
Now that we are getting much closer to the final target, and I got so much attention from the media not just in the UK but in many countries, we need to keep pushing, so please keep sharing my crowdjustice page and encourage others to support.
I hope you all have a good holiday break and a wonderful New Year.
All the best
Dec. 6, 2018
After the Media Storm: Some Questions Answered
The coverage across the BBC on Monday was phenomenal. As well as reports and interviews on the TV, radio and online, it sparked a national debate on the nature of philosophical belief discrimination, and on ethical veganism. It was covered across the world, from the US to New Zealand. At last count, there were over 225 different articles online covering the case, in addition to the various TV and radio pieces on it.
Perhaps inevitably, this has led to some conjecture and mistaken reporting which has misrepresented the facts of the case. Given the scale of the coverage, it has not been possible to address this directly with most outlets, although I have tried to do this where I can. Credit in particular to the Washington Post, who swiftly and professionally made wholesale revisions to their article, when some errors were pointed out to them.
I am in the process of preparing for the March hearing, which must take priority. As a result and given the scale of the reporting of the story, I cannot address all of the factual mistakes that have been reported. I have therefore prepared the following FAQ, so that there is no mistaken impression in people’s minds.
- Is it true that you were dismissed because you were not good at your job?
No. I worked for my former employer between 2004 and 2007, when I left on very good terms to continue my animal rights campaigning elsewhere. In 2016, I returned to a more senior role there, and remained there until I was dismissed in 2018. There was never any criticism made of my performance, which was always commended. I was never subject to any capability or disciplinary procedures (or, to my knowledge, was I ever even the subject of any informal concerns) during either period I was working for my former employer, or at any other employer at any stage of my career, before the events that led to my dismissal.
- Is it true that you were dismissed for gross misconduct?
“Conduct” (and by extension misconduct, and gross misconduct) is one of the five potentially fair reasons for dismissal under UK employment law. It is correct that “gross misconduct” is the reason that my former employer has given for my dismissal. The Employment Tribunal claim I have brought is on the basis that my actions did not constitute gross misconduct and therefore that the dismissal was unfair.
Once the Tribunal has determined the legal status of the philosophical belief in ethical veganism, it will then move on to determine (at a subsequent hearing or hearings) whether or not my actions constituted gross misconduct capable of justifying my dismissal, as my former employer has asserted, and whether the dismissal was because I raised protected disclosures or was discriminated against on the basis of my philosophical belief in ethical veganism (assuming that the Tribunal finds that my ethical veganism is a philosophical belief protected at law).
The conduct in particular that my former employer relies on in justifying the allegation of gross misconduct was my sharing of information about their pension fund with my colleagues and managers. They were all (as far as I am aware) contributors to that pension fund. I believed that the fund that they were contributing to was unethical because it invested funds in companies that tested on animals. I felt that this was contrary to my philosophical belief, but also the charitable object of my former employer, and therefore that it was in the public interest and in the organisation’s interest to correct this. I believe that I was justified in sharing this information, and that it was not gross misconduct for me to share this information - which included the means by which my colleagues could ensure that their pensions were invested in ethical funds if they decided that they wanted to do so (and I placed no pressure on them to do so).
My employer disagreed and labelled my actions as gross misconduct. The Tribunal will determine the matter.
- Is it true that you leaked sensitive information into the public domain?
No. Nothing went into the public domain or outside of my former employer. The information that I shared was only with colleagues and managers, or to the pension fund itself, and was only about the pension fund to which my colleagues contributed.
- Your case has been reported as a whistleblowing case. How can it be that your dismissal was linked to your ethical veganism?
My case is that the disclosures that I made to management and to colleagues about the pension fund were protected disclosures (the legal term for whistleblowing). As a result of these protected disclosures, I was disciplined. The sanction that was applied to me as the outcome of that disciplinary procedure was my summary dismissal.
My case is that the decision to dismiss me was taken because of my philosophical belief in ethical veganism. There were various points in the disciplinary procedure in which my ethical and philosophical beliefs were explicitly referred to, and my case is that it was explicit in my former employer’s approach to the disciplinary procedure that I was an ethical vegan and was to be treated accordingly in ways which were always to my detriment and which resulted in the outcome of dismissal. By way of one example, in the outcome letter arising from that disciplinary procedure, my former employer explicitly stated that the sanction of dismissal was appropriate because of my “ethical beliefs”.
So my case is about both whistleblowing and discrimination: I was disciplined because of the protected disclosures, that disciplinary was unfairly and discriminatorily biased against me because of my philosophical beliefs, and these biases led to my dismissal. Both factors – whistleblowing and discrimination - therefore caused me to be dismissed.
My former employer disputes the case I am advancing. It says that the decision to discipline and dismiss me had nothing to do with either my disclosures about the pension fund (which it says were not protected disclosures under the relevant law) or my philosophical belief in ethical veganism (which it says is not a philosophical belief capable of legal protection).
The Tribunal will rule on who is correct. The first step in this is determining whether ethical veganism is a philosophical belief capable of protection under the discrimination legislation. My former employer says that it is not, and the Tribunal will determine who is correct. This is the hearing to be held on 13 and 14 March 2019. Once this is determined, the litigation will then move on to consider whether my philosophical belief, or my protected disclosures, led to my dismissal.
- Isn’t it true that you are just using this litigation to advance your beliefs in ethical veganism?
No. I would much rather not have been disciplined, or dismissed, or placed in the position where it was necessary to litigate. However, this is the position that I have been placed in. I believe that I have been discriminated against, and in order to assert my legal rights, I need to establish as a point of law whether ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief. If, as a by-product of the way I have been treated, I am able to establish that ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief which results in other ethical vegans having greater protections under the law, then that is a welcome by-product. But it is not something that I have sought out, and it is not something I would have chosen.
For reasons which I hope are clear, it is not appropriate for me to give a commentary on the Tribunal proceedings. The matter is before the Tribunal, and it is for the Tribunal to determine the outcome.
The purpose of the FAQ above is to present what I hope is a non-controversial response to some of areas of confusion that have arisen in the public consciousness following the recent media coverage.
The Respondent (my former employer) is entitled to present its own version of events, both in the litigation and in the public domain, as it sees fit. If I disagree with anything they say in the public domain, I may correct it. Ideally however, both sides can now concentrate on the litigation.
It is not my intention to publish any further detail of the substance of the case - although I will of course update donors to the crowdfunding on procedural milestones in the litigation.
I also wanted to thank everyone, and the vegan community in particular, for the support that I have received in recent days. There is a daunting and difficult task before me, and the personal messages I have received – including from people I have never met, and in all likelihood will never meet – has been particularly heartening for me, and I am very grateful. Thank you.
Finally, one last request: if you think that this update might be of interest to anyone who’s interested in my case (or might be!) please send it to them.
Dec. 3, 2018
First hearing about whether ethical veganism is a protected belief
The Employment Tribunal has set a date for a hearing to determine whether ethical veganism is a philosophical belief capable of protection under discrimination legislation. The hearing will be on 13 and 14 March 2019.
This is not a hearing to determine whether I was unfairly dismissed, or suffered any detriment because of my beliefs, or because I blew the whistle: it’s a hearing to decide the legal status of the belief in ethical veganism. If we are successful in establishing that ethical veganism is such a philosophical belief, then a subsequent hearing will deal with the question of whether I was discriminated because of that belief. But the hearing on March 13 and 14 is not first and foremost about me: it’s about all ethical vegans.
The hearing on March 13 and 14 is therefore incredibly important. The Employment Tribunal cannot issue binding precedents, but where Tribunals have issued judgments which recognise philosophical beliefs in the past, those judgments tend to have been followed by other courts and tribunals subsequently. This means that, if we are successful, it is very likely that ethical veganism will effectively be established in law as a philosophical belief, and discrimination against ethical vegans will be unlawful in the future.
My lawyers at Bindmans LLP, led by Peter Daly, are already well advanced in preparation for the hearing. As you can probably imagine, there is a large amount of work involved in preparing a case which seeks to establish that a particular philosophical belief satisfies the complex legal definitions set out in the Equality Act 2010. We have a large amount of evidence – which is one of the strengths of our case – but it needs to be collated and prepared, and our legal arguments refined. This will take time and incur costs.
I am entirely reliant on your donations in order to bring the case. I am eternally grateful for the donations I have already received and I couldn’t have reached even this stage without you. But we haven’t achieved anything substantive yet: we’ve only got to a position where we are in touching distance of a real achievement being made. We’re nearly there, but we’re not there yet.
The Vegan Society are supporting the philosophical belief hearing (whilst taking no stance on the overall tribunal). Their support shows that this case has the capacity to improve the recognition of ethical veganism as a coherent, developed and increasingly well supported philosophy, and also to confirm that the needs of vegans in their employment and their everyday lives must be taken seriously.
Please continue to support me and donate whatever you can to help our efforts. Even sharing this page on social media will be of huge assistance. Any small amount really makes a difference. We are a community, and we have strength in numbers: let’s use those numbers to generate a real and important change in the law.
July 26, 2018
Employment Tribunal accepted my claim
The Employment Tribunal has now written to us confirming it has accepted our claim. It has now been sent it to the charity (the Respondent) which has 28 days to send a response back. Their response will tell us a lot about their attitude towards ethical veganism more broadly. I will be sure to update as things develop in the coming weeks with how we intend to proceed.
For your information the tribunal has already sent us a date for the first preliminary hearing, which will be in March 2019.
This is proving a complicated and long process for which I am still in need of funding. So I would greatly appreciate you emailing the Guardian article below to at least five friends to let them know about the case and ask them to visit my case page: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jun/16/league-against-cruel-sports-legal-battle-with-whistleblower
Please also continue sharing on social media.
Thanks for your support,
July 4, 2018
Claim sent to the Employment Tribunal
Because we have achieved our initial target of £5,000 on time thanks to the generosity of over 150 backers, we have been able to engage ours solicitors to develop our claim, which has now been sent to the Employment Tribunal. We need to continue fundraising for the next steps.
June 3, 2018
A quarter of the target already achieved!!
Thank you everyone for all the support! In just five hours from launched we achieved a quarter of the target!!
There are no public comments on this case page.