The recent judgment in Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports in England and Wales held that ethical veganism was a protected philosophical belief under employment law. In contrast, vegetarianism was found not to be a protected philosophical belief in Conisbee v Crossley Farms Limited and others. The authors argue that the Employment Tribunal misunderstood the notion of vegetarianism when deciding that it was a ‘life-style choice’. There are different kinds of vegans and vegetarians, each with their own way of practising the philosophy which influences how they live their life. Not all people who follow a meat-free diet should be afforded this protection, and it depends on whether their belief is one which is determined by certain factors, such as animal welfare and environmentalism, rather than for health purposes. The authors explore the arguments and analysis in the above employment cases, coming to the conclusion that the tribunals oversimplified what it means to hold values such as veganism and vegetarianism, failing to understand the differences between different classifications and sub-groups when coming to a decision. The different kinds of vegans and vegetarians and their characteristics are outlined, before determining whether this should constitute protection under employment law, protecting individuals from discrimination. The situation in the USA and Canada regarding this issue is very different, and there are parallels drawn with attempting to establish veganism or vegetarianism as a religion, and where they could benefit from the recent decision in England and Wales. Finally, this paper concludes that ethical and environmental veganism and vegetarianism should both qualify as protected philosophical beliefs, but other kinds may fall short of what is required to satisfy the requirements under law.
<p>This study considers whether participation in pro bono legal work during a programme of academic study at Northumbria University increases the likelihood of future participation in pro bono activity amongst law students.</p><p>This was a quantitative study in which an online survey, measuring altruistic attitudes, was sent to students enrolled on the M Law Exempting degree programme at Northumbria University. The author analysed the data by comparing the attitudes of those students who had engaged in pro bono activity during the fourth year of the programme against those students who had yet to engage in pro bono activity, being those students in Years 1, 2 and 3 of the programme.</p><p>The data suggests that whilst the students value engagement in pro bono activity, this is principally due to the personal benefits which they gain. In particular, respondents reported improvement in legal skills and enhanced employability as a consequence of participation in pro bono work. The data indicates that there is an increased awareness of social and economic issues whilst engaged in pro bono work but this does not translate into a desire to continue pro bono work after graduation.</p>It was therefore concluded that participation in pro bono work during the course of academic study does not increase the likelihood of future participation in pro bono activity following graduation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.