Claimant v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant had less than two years' continuous service (only 12 months from 20 March 2023 to 24 March 2024) and therefore did not meet the statutory qualifying period under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claimant argued dismissal was due to asserting her philosophical belief (veganism/refusal of vaccination) as a statutory right under s.104 ERA 1996. Tribunal found that philosophical belief is not included within the definition of 'relevant statutory rights' under s.104(4) and therefore cannot ground an automatic unfair dismissal claim. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims at paragraphs 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f of draft list of issues were struck out as they compared claimant to white colleagues and related to race discrimination (which had been withdrawn), not religious belief discrimination. These had no reasonable prospect of success as religion/belief claims. Remaining direct discrimination claims (6a, 6b, 6h, 6i, 6j, 6k) were not struck out and will proceed to full hearing as they require witness evidence and fact-finding.
Claims of indirect religion or belief discrimination were not struck out. Tribunal found they do not have no reasonable prospect of success and require explanation and determination of facts through witness evidence at a full hearing.
Claims of religious belief related harassment remain live after the preliminary hearing. Tribunal determined these require witness evidence and fact-finding at a full merits hearing.
Facts
Claimant, a vegan with philosophical belief against vaccination (as vaccines may be tested on animals), was employed by NHS Trust from 20 March 2023 to 24 March 2024. She was dismissed after approximately one year of service. She brought claims of unfair dismissal and religious/belief discrimination. The respondent applied to strike out parts of the claim. At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether the claimant had jurisdiction to bring unfair dismissal claims and whether parts of the discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both unfair dismissal claims for lack of jurisdiction: the ordinary claim because claimant lacked two years' service, and the automatic claim because philosophical belief is not a 'relevant statutory right' under s.104 ERA. The tribunal partially struck out the direct discrimination claim, finding that complaints comparing the claimant to white colleagues (6c-6f) were actually race discrimination claims (which had been withdrawn) rather than religion/belief claims. The remaining discrimination and harassment claims will proceed to a full hearing.
Practical note
A philosophical belief, even if protected under the Equality Act 2010, does not constitute a 'relevant statutory right' under s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore cannot ground an automatic unfair dismissal claim to bypass the two-year service requirement.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2401576/2024
- Decision date
- 10 June 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No