Claimant v University of Manchester
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out under Rule 38 for having no reasonable prospect of success. The second respondent's investment duties are heavily prescribed by law under the Pensions Act 1995 and Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment) Regulations 2005. Schedule 22 Equality Act 2010 provides that acting in accordance with statutory obligations cannot be discriminatory. The first respondent's justification defence would succeed as denying 98% of staff access to the Scheme to accommodate approximately 2% of vegans would not be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. No vegan-suitable pension fund exists on the market for the respondents to offer.
Facts
The claimant, an ethical vegan, was employed by the first respondent from June 2023 to January 2024. He was auto-enrolled in the second respondent's Universities Superannuation Scheme but opted out in July 2023, objecting to the scheme's investment decisions as incompatible with ethical veganism. He claimed indirect discrimination on grounds of belief in ethical veganism, arguing both respondents failed to provide a vegan-suitable pension fund. The claimant is neurodiverse (autistic) and self-represented. The respondents applied to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 38. Against the second respondent, the tribunal found pension trustees are required by statute to prioritise financial interests of members and cannot be acting discriminatorily when following statutory duties (Schedule 22 Equality Act 2010). No vegan pension fund exists and the limited circumstances for considering non-financial factors could not be met. Against the first respondent, the justification defence would succeed as excluding 98% of staff from the scheme to accommodate approximately 2% of vegans would be disproportionate.
Practical note
Claims alleging discrimination in pension provision face substantial legal obstacles where trustees are acting under statutory investment duties to prioritise members' financial interests, and Schedule 22 Equality Act 2010 provides a defence where actions are required by statute.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000677/2024
- Decision date
- 19 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 7 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No