{"title":"Brands make believe: ethical veganism and labelling in fashion","authors":"J. Gibson","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2020.02.00","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In January this year, in Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports, the Employment Tribunal held that ethical veganism is a philosophical belief under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. This preliminary ruling on veganism was part of an unfair dismissal case, in which the claimant maintained that he was dismissed because of his ethical veganism. Although as a first instance decision it is merely persuasive on subsequent tribunals, the case has attracted wide publicity and any decision seeking to depart from it would likely be viewed as quite controversial without providing good reasons to distinguish itself. While some may say that the decision does not technically change the law, this is just half the story. Indeed, in many respects it changes everything.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4337/qmjip.2020.02.00","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2020.02.00","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
In January this year, in Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports, the Employment Tribunal held that ethical veganism is a philosophical belief under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. This preliminary ruling on veganism was part of an unfair dismissal case, in which the claimant maintained that he was dismissed because of his ethical veganism. Although as a first instance decision it is merely persuasive on subsequent tribunals, the case has attracted wide publicity and any decision seeking to depart from it would likely be viewed as quite controversial without providing good reasons to distinguish itself. While some may say that the decision does not technically change the law, this is just half the story. Indeed, in many respects it changes everything.