1 Mr G Conisbee v Crossley Farms Ltd & Ors [2019] ET 3335357/2018, para 1.

2 See Sandberg, R, ‘Clarifying the definition of religion under English law: the need for a universal definition?’, (2018) 20 Ecc LJ 132–157Google Scholar.

3 Conisbee, para 2.

4 Ibid, para 7.

5 Ibid, para 56.

6 Ibid, para 14.

7 For example, in Austin v Samuel Grant (North East) Ltd [2011] ET/2503956/11, an employment tribunal found that the claimant had been harassed on the grounds of his sexual orientation when he was referred to as ‘homosexual’ and ‘gay’ by colleagues – even though he was not – after he had told them that he did not like football. It held that, despite him not being homosexual, that was not required under the Equality Act 2010 and that his ‘perceived’ homosexuality meant that the Act protected him. Similarly, in Otomewo v The Carphone Warehouse Ltd [2011] ET/2330554/2011, when two of the claimant's work colleagues used his iPhone without his permission and updated his Facebook page to read, ‘Finally came out of the closet. I am gay and proud’, an employment tribunal held that their action amounted to harassment on grounds of sexual orientation.

8 So, ‘a white worker who sees a black colleague being subjected to racially abusive language could have a case of harassment if the language also causes an offensive environment for her’: Equality Act 2010, Explanatory Notes, para 99.

9 Conisbee, para 15.

10 Grainger PLC v Nicholson [2009] UKEAT 0219/09/0311 at para 24. In Grainger, they were articulated as five tests, with the first test given here split into two.

11 Ibid, para 16.

12 Ibid, paras 20 and 21.

13 R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment [2005] UKHL 15.

14 Redfearn v The United Kingdom App no 47335/06 (ECtHR, 6 November 2012).

15 Eweida v UK App nos 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10 (ECtHR, 15 January 2013).

16 Conisbee, para 19.

17 See further Sandberg, R, ‘Are political beliefs religious now?’, (2015) 175 Law and Justice 180–197Google Scholar.

18 Kelly v Unison [2009] ET 2203854/08 (22 December 2009) at para 114.

19 Mr C McEleney v Ministry of Defence [2018] ET S/4105347/2017.

20 Conisbee, para 25.

21 For instance, in Williamson, Lord Nicholls said at para 23 that ‘the belief must also be coherent in the sense of being intelligible and capable of being understood’.

22 Lord Nicholls in Williamson said that in relation to Article 9 a non-religious belief ‘must relate to an aspect of human life or behaviour of comparable importance to that normally found with religious beliefs’: ibid, para 24.

23 HL Deb 13 July 2005, vol 673, col 1110.

24 Conisbee, para 26.

25 Ibid, para 28.

26 McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs (2007) UKEAT/0223/07/CEA.

27 Ibid, para 29.

28 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems’, 2019, pp 11 and 26, available at <https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/Edited-SPM_Approved_Microsite_FINAL.pdf>, accessed 10 October 2019.

29 Ibid, para 30.

30 Ibid, para 24. It is not stated which edition of the OED was used to provide these definitions. The definitions in the online version are slightly different but come to the same conclusion: vegetarianism is ‘the principles of practice of vegetarians; abstention from eating meat, dish, or other animal products’; a vegetarian is ‘a person who abstains from eating animal food and lives principally or wholly on a plant-based diet, esp, a person who avoids meat and often fish but who will consume dairy products and eggs in addition to vegetable food’. Veganism is ‘the beliefs of practice of vegans; abstention from or avoidance of all food or other products of animal origin’; a vegan is ‘a person who abstains from all food of animal origin and avoids the use of animal products in other forms’. It is interesting that the OED online refers to vegetarianism as a practice and veganism as a belief.

31 Conisbee, para 24.

32 According to the Vegetarian Society and the European Vegetarian Union, a vegetarian is someone who does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or by-products of animal slaughter. Some vegetarians avoid all animal flesh but consume dairy products and eggs; some avoid animal flesh and eggs but consume dairy products; and some avoid all animal products except eggs. Vegans, on the other hand, avoid all animal and animal-derived products. For further details, see European Vegetarian Union, ‘EVU position paper: definitions of “vegan” and “vegetarian” in accordance with the EU Food Information Regulation’, 2018, available at <https://www.euroveg.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/EVU_PP_Definition.pdf>, accessed 10 October 2019.

33 Conisbee, para 31.

34 Ibid, para 33.

35 HL Deb 23 March 2010, vol 718, col 853, cited in Conisbee, para 34.

36 Williamson, para 55.

37 Conisbee, para 39.

38 Sandberg, R, ‘Controversial Recent Claims to Religious Liberty’ (2008) 124 LQR 213, 214Google Scholar.

39 Per Lady Hale, at para 75.

40 Ibid, para 40.

41 Ibid, para 41.

42 P Edge, ‘Vegetarianism as a protected characteristic: another view on Conisbee’, Law & Religion UK, 21 September 2019, <http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2019/09/23/vegetarianism-as-a-protected-characteristic-another-view-on-conisbee/>, accessed 10 October 2019.

43 ‘Reader, if you seek his memorial, look around’: inscription on the monument to Sir Christopher Wren in the crypt of St Paul's Cathedral.

44 R (Hodkin & Anor) v Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC77.

45 Conisbee, para 43.

46 Edge, ‘Vegetarianism as a protected characteristic’.

47 Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Ltd [2011] ET 3105555/2009.

48 Edge, ‘Vegetarianism as a protected characteristic’.