The judge described her evidence as ‘unconvincing’
A woman traveller checks her mobile phone in front of an airport’s flight information board.(Image: Getty Images)
A woman who took flights to Canada for work and travels by plane for holidays cannot sue her employer on environmental grounds, a judge has ruled.
Hilary Bannerman worked at the Land Restoration Trust, a charity which manages green spaces, as a ranger at a new housing estate in Cambridge. She claimed she was discriminated against for her belief in social and environmental justice.
However, her attempt to sue the company on those grounds failed after a judge decided her views did not amount to a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. He said her evidence as to how she upholds her belief was “unconvincing”.
A preliminary hearing was told Ms Bannerman had claimed her “belief in social and environmental justice is deeply rooted, consistent and central to who she is”. She said her beliefs are “not political in the party-political sense but philosophical in nature, concerned with fairness, sustainability and the moral responsibility we each carry out to protect people and the planet”.
Ms Bannerman told the hearing she “consistently” practices sustainability at home and work “through rigorous recycling, reducing waste, minimising single-use plastics and actively encouraging others to adopt similar practices”.
She said this is part of her “long-standing commitment to lowering her carbon footprint and supporting clean energy”.
The claimant accepted that she flew “everywhere” for a job she had in Canada for some years and admitted that she flies for holidays with her family, including an upcoming trip to Greece.
Ms Bannerman told the hearing everyone is entitled to a holiday and she “must therefore compromise her beliefs”, but added that she does not do so “unless she has no choice”.
Employment judge Kevin Palmer said following the Bury St Edmunds hearing that Ms Bannerman’s evidence as to how she furthers her philosophical belief in environmental justice was “unconvincing”.
“She practices recycling, encourages others to do so, has made a modest adjustment to a bike shed and has attached some solar panels to her property,” the judge said.
“This is something that many millions of people have done in the UK and continue to do as a matter of course. In fact, recycling is a requirement for the majority of households. Her evidence in my judgment goes nowhere near showing that she lives by her belief in environmental justice.”
In his judgment, published on Thursday, the judge also noted that Ms Bannerman did not use public transport extensively, eat a plant-based diet or use eco-friendly energy companies.
Judge Palmer said that a desire to “secure a large payment of compensation in these proceedings” for the financial freedom of her family is “very much an individual and not a social outlook”.
Ms Bannerman’s allegation that her belief in social and environmental justice amounted to a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 failed, the judge ruled, and her claims of such discrimination were dismissed.
A preliminary hearing for further claims in Ms Bannerman’s case is due to take place on January 20.