This month, among our many fine articles, we include one from Naomi Cunningham on sex, gender and occupational requirements. In it, she refers to the ‘increasingly heated and litigious debate on trans rights’. I suspect that one could go much further and ask whether the debate stops at trans rights or continues onto a whole range of other identity-related characteristics. One could also go on to ask whether a focus on difference rather than similarity, or the individual rather than the collective, is a better way of achieving some form of sought-after equality.

There was much publicity last month regarding the employment tribunal claim brought by Jordi Casamitjana against the charity the League Against Cruel Sports. Although the case principally concerned the reason for dismissal, one of the preliminary issues was whether ethical veganism constituted a belief capable of being a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. The employment judge found that it was and the case continues. (I understand that the charity did not contest this proposition and therefore there will be no appeal on the point.)

Explicitly on the back of this employment tribunal decision, the Vegan Society has issued an eight-page booklet, ‘Supporting veganism in the workplace: a guide for employers’. This includes advice ranging from adding ‘vegan’ to the list of denominations on equality monitoring forms through to providing non-dairy milk, as well as exempting vegans from corporate events where there is horse racing or hog roasting. There are sections on training staff, reassuring employees, acting within the law and taking prompt action where someone is subjected to unfair treatment because they are vegan.

None of this is referred to in order to mock. The Vegan Society is there to promote veganism and the interests of its members. An employment tribunal decision has gone in its favour and naturally the society wishes to use that to promote its cause. The same would be true of any other society or group promoting a belief or identity. Underlying this, however, is the notion of an individual or a group stating who or what they are, what their particular identity or characteristic is, coupled with an expressed desire to be treated equally with respect for their particular features. The question is whether that approach of emphasising the difference from the larger group of society helps or hinders the achievement of their aim.

Henri Tajfel was a social psychologist who identified – and developed – social identity theory. He proposed that humans have an in-built tendency to categorise themselves into one or more ‘in groups’. Individuals adopt the identity of that ‘in group’ and distinguish themselves from other groups. An easy experiment to try is to divide a group in a room into ‘A’s and ‘B’s. It takes little time for ‘A’s to discriminate in favour of their group and against the ‘B’s. The same is true in reverse. The ‘minimal group paradigm’ suggests the distinction can be as trivial as belief about whether hot dogs are sandwiches.

If this theory is correct, then it does call into question whether emphasising the differences in you or your group from other groups will serve to promote understanding and respect, leading to greater equality. The danger is that the focus on the difference may, in fact, subconsciously, promote negative discrimination.

Alex Lock, DAC Beachcroft LLP