Ethical veganism claim fails: care home bank worker lacked continuity for unfair dismissal
A tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim from a care home bank worker who refused the COVID-19 vaccine citing veganism, ruling she lacked continuity of service and her belief was not a protected characteristic.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #ethical-veganism
- #bank-worker
- #mutuality-of-obligation
- #continuity-of-service
- #vaccination-mandate
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 9 February 2016 until she became a bank worker on 22 November 2017.
- From 22 November 2017, there was no obligation on the respondent to provide work nor on the claimant to accept shifts.
- The claimant refused the COVID-19 vaccine citing her vegan diet, but did not provide evidence of a genuine philosophical belief in ethical veganism.
- The claimant's last shift as a bank worker was on 12 August 2021.
- The respondent terminated the claimant's employment on 12 November 2021 due to the vaccination mandate.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a contracted employee working 30 hours per week.
-
Request to become bank worker
Claimant wrote to respondent requesting to relinquish contracted hours and be placed on the bank.
-
Became bank worker
Claimant transferred from contracted hours to bank work, with no obligation on either side to offer or accept shifts.
-
First grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance about harassment, victimization, and detriment, but did not mention veganism.
-
Vaccination redeployment letter
Respondent informed claimant that from 11 November 2021, all staff must be vaccinated; offered temporary redeployment.
-
Grievance hearing
Claimant explained she followed a vegan diet and believed she would be exempt from the vaccine.
-
Excluded from building
Claimant was not allowed into the care home due to unvaccinated status.
-
Vaccination review meeting
Meeting held; no reference to veganism in notes.
-
Termination of employment
Respondent sent letter terminating claimant's employment without notice due to lack of vaccination exemption.
-
Claim presented
Claimant issued proceedings for unfair dismissal and discrimination.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant genuinely held a philosophical belief in ethical veganism and whether she had enough continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims.
- The claimant became a bank worker in November 2017, with no obligation on either side to offer or accept shifts. This broke continuity of service, so she did not have the two years' continuous employment needed for unfair dismissal.
- Her belief in veganism was not a protected characteristic because she did not provide evidence of a genuine philosophical belief in ethical veganism; she simply followed a vegan diet.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Bank workers and zero-hours staff should check whether their employment is continuous — gaps or lack of mutuality of obligation can prevent unfair dismissal claims.
- To claim protection for a philosophical belief, you must show it is genuinely held, cogent, serious, and important — a mere dietary preference is not enough.
- Employers facing vaccine mandates should document any belief-based objections carefully and consider whether the employee's belief meets the legal threshold.
When a vegan diet is not enough for discrimination protection
This case shows the importance of two key legal hurdles: continuity of service for unfair dismissal, and the threshold for a protected philosophical belief. The former care home bank worker argued that her refusal of the COVID-19 vaccine was based on ethical veganism, but the tribunal found she had not established a genuine philosophical belief — only a dietary preference.
The continuity trap for bank workers
The claimant had been a contracted employee from 2016 but voluntarily moved to bank work in 2017. From that point, there was no obligation on the employer to offer shifts or on her to accept them. This lack of 'mutuality of obligation' broke her continuity of service. Even though she worked many shifts during the pandemic, the tribunal held that the bank arrangement meant she could not count her earlier continuous employment. For anyone on zero-hours or bank contracts, this is a critical point: a break in the employment relationship can wipe out your right to claim unfair dismissal.
What the employer did right
The respondent, Willow Tower Opco1 Ltd, had a clear vaccination policy and offered temporary redeployment. They held a review meeting and terminated only when the legal mandate came into force. The tribunal noted that the claimant did not mention veganism in her initial grievance, and the meeting notes made no reference to it. This suggests employers should document any belief-based objections at the earliest opportunity.
Why the result matters
This decision reinforces that not every strongly held view qualifies as a protected belief under the Equality Act. The claimant needed to show her veganism was a 'philosophical belief' — cogent, serious, and important — not just a lifestyle choice. Without evidence of a genuine ethical conviction, the discrimination claim failed. For employees, this means that simply following a diet or having a personal opinion is unlikely to attract legal protection.
Similar cases
Independent clerk to school appeals panels was a worker, not an employee — claims out of time
A long-serving independent clerk who worked for Royal Borough of Greenwich for 28 years was found to be a worker rather than an employee, meaning her unfair dismissal claim could not proceed. Her remaining claims for holiday pay and expenses were also dismissed as too late.
Dog walker with set hours found to be employee: unfair dismissal and age discrimination win
A dog walker who worked set hours for five years was found to be an employee, not a self-employed contractor, and awarded over £11,700 for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
Working through a limited company? You may still be an employee
A tribunal ruled that a commissioning director with 24 years' service remained an employee even after switching to a consultancy agreement via his own limited company.
Security guard with 28 months' service found to be employee, unfairly dismissed
A security guard who was removed from his assignment and not given any disciplinary process has been found to be an employee and unfairly dismissed. The tribunal also ordered the employer to pay outstanding holiday pay for the full 28 months of service.