A former employee of the University of Manchester has seen his legal claim for discrimination on the grounds of his ethical veganism dismissed at an employment tribunal. The worker, who has been granted anonymity, argued that the university and its pension provider failed to offer him a 'plant-based' pension fund that aligned with his deeply held beliefs.
The Core of the Claim
The individual, who worked at the institution from June 2023 to January 2024, was automatically enrolled into the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) upon starting his role. He subsequently opted out, objecting to the scheme's investment policies which he claimed conflicted with his ethical vegan principles. At the Manchester Employment Tribunal, he alleged both the University of Manchester and the USS had indirectly discriminated against him by not making an ethical vegan pension fund available.
Comparisons and Arguments Presented
The claimant highlighted that the USS offers a Sharia-compliant pension fund for Muslim employees, suggesting it was 'not a stretch' for the institution to provide a similar option conforming to his dietary and ethical beliefs. He estimated that the USS, as the UK's largest pension scheme, has approximately 10,000 vegan members who might share his concerns. The worker sought compensation for lost employer pension contributions, associated tax advantages, and interest.
The Tribunal's Ruling and Reasoning
Employment Judge Rachel Barker dismissed the claim, stating it had 'no reasonable prospect of success'. The tribunal heard several key points that undermined the case. Crucially, it was acknowledged that no ethical vegan pension fund currently exists on the market, although such products are reportedly in development. Therefore, even if the USS wished to offer one, it was not practically possible.
The tribunal also noted that UK law requires employers to auto-enrol eligible staff into a qualifying workplace pension scheme and contribute to it. The University of Manchester stated it was not feasible to offer pension provisions through alternative schemes outside the USS framework for its employees.
Distinguishing the Sharia Fund Example
Addressing the claimant's reference to the Sharia fund, the tribunal clarified a significant difference. The Sharia-compliant option is composed of several existing investment schemes already available in the general market. In contrast, there is presently no equivalent vegan pension product available for any provider to offer, creating a fundamental logistical barrier.
University's Stance and Broader Context
The University of Manchester informed the tribunal that an internal equality assessment revealed that not all staff who identify as ethical vegans object to the USS's investment policies. In fact, this employee was the sole member of staff who had left the pension scheme specifically due to ethical veganism concerns.
During proceedings, the claimant emphasised that the 'morality of the issue' was the key point, rather than statistical or legal arguments. Judge Barker responded firmly, stating, 'The Tribunal must apply the law as it currently stands, not as a [worker] may wish it to be.' She advised that if the individual seeks legal change, he should approach his MP or consider other avenues to influence policymakers.
This case underscores the complex intersection of deeply held personal beliefs and the standardized frameworks of workplace benefits, highlighting the legal boundaries within which employers and pension providers must currently operate.
