Is Veganism a Religious Creed? The Case of the Anti-Vaxxer

Tomorrow, we discuss Jerold Daniel Friedman’s lost job offer for a pharmaceutical company. The firm required him to get a mumps vaccine, even though he worked in a warehouse and had no patient contact. Friedman had been a devoted vegan for nine years. As such, he could not use any animal product or byproduct, including the egg that is used in making a vaccination.

California law protects against religious discrimination. This includes “religious creed,” which is part of ‘“Religious creed,’ ‘religion,’ ‘religious observance,’ ‘religious belief,’ and ‘creed’ include all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice.”

“Religious creed” is defined as: “‘Religious creed’ includes any traditionally recognized religion as well as beliefs, observations, or practices which an individual sincerely holds and which occupy in his or her life a place of importance parallel to that of traditionally recognized religions.”

So what does this mean? The court used a long series of precedents that broadened religious creed beyond a theistic definition. It includes conscientious objectors to war, specifically to killing.

Here is the pivotal part of the court’s thinking:

First, plaintiff believes “that all living beings must be valued equally and that it is immoral and unethical for humans to kill and exploit animals even for food, clothing and the testing of product safety for humans”; further, it is “a violation of natural law” to transgress this belief. There is no allegation or judicially noticeable evidence plaintiff’s belief system addresses fundamental or ultimate questions. There is no claim that veganism speaks to: the meaning of human existence; the purpose of life; theories of humankind’s nature or its place in the universe; matters of human life and death; or the exercise of faith.   

While veganism compels plaintiff to live in accord with strict dictates of behavior, it reflects a moral and secular, rather than religious, philosophy.

Second, while plaintiff’s belief system governs his behavior in wide-ranging respects, including the food he eats, the clothes he wears, and the products he uses, it is not sufficiently comprehensive in nature to fall within the provisions of regulation 7293.1.

Plaintiff does not assert that his belief system derives from a power or being or faith to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else depends.

Third, though not determinative, no formal or external signs of a religion are present. There are no: teachers or leaders; services or ceremonies; structure or organization; orders of worship or articles of faith; or holidays.

What do you think?

If veganism was found to be a religious creed, the employer would have to consider a "reasonable accommodation." I don't believe there is a reasonable accommodation in this context.

But I disagree with the court’s reasoning. Veganism seems to be a comprehensive system of belief. It seems to address matters of fundamental importance in deciding one’s purpose in life. So what if it has no gregarious society or place of worship, such as a church. Conscientious objectors don’t either.

I welcome your thoughts on FB or at mhl@illinois.edu.