Jordi Casamitjana’s Unfair Dismissal

League Against Cruel Sports Under Fire for Mishandling of Employee Dismissal Case

In recent years, the charity sector has seen its share of controversies, but few have been as high-profile as the case involving Jordi Casamitjana and the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS).

In 2018, the League Against Cruel Sports dismissed Jordi Casamitjana, sparking a protracted legal battle that lasted until 2020. Casamitjana’s dismissal led to an Employment Tribunal and substantial negative media coverage for the League. The tribunal revealed that Mr Casamitjana had done nothing wrong to justify his dismissal.

Following the tribunal, the League issued a statement acknowledging their mistake:

“As has been the subject of extensive media coverage, between 2018 and 2020 we were involved in Employment Tribunal litigation brought by our former employee Jordi Casamitjana. We are happy to make clear that Mr Casamitjana was a very valued employee of the League during the two periods he worked with us, showing a great deal of professionalism, expertise and commitment to the protection of animals.

The only reason for the dismissal of Mr Casamitjana in 2018 was his communications to his colleagues in relation to our pension arrangements. Having revisited the issue we now accept that Mr Casamitjana did nothing wrong with such communications, which were motivated by his belief in ethical veganism.

We are grateful to Mr Casamitjana for having raised the issue of pensions to us, which allowed us to change our default pension fund to an ethical one closer to our values.”

While this statement attempts to bring closure to the contentious issue, it raises significant questions about why it took the organisation two years to arrive at an obvious conclusion.

Critics argue that the delay in acknowledging the wrongful dismissal of a “valued employee” reflects poorly on the League’s internal processes and decision-making capabilities. During this two-year period, Mr Casamitjana endured considerable professional and personal upheaval, while the League maintained a stance that was ultimately proven to be unfounded.

Further compounding the controversy is the League’s lack of transparency regarding the financial cost of the case. It is believed that up to £250,000—money donated to the League for the purpose of protecting animals—was spent on legal fees, compensation, and staff time preparing for the case. This significant expenditure of donor funds on a legal battle, rather than directly supporting animal protection, has not been adequately addressed by the League.

Adding to the discontent, no one at the League was held responsible for the fiasco. Neither the Senior Management Team nor the trustees faced any consequences. Despite the bad publicity over two years, the Senior Management Team continued to earn substantial wages. Meanwhile, Vice Presidents Peter Egan and Penny Morgan, along with trustee Chris Williamson, who raised serious concerns about the case, were dismissed by the League. These Vice Presidents and trustee were later proven correct in their concerns, yet they faced retribution rather than acknowledgment.

This protracted timeline and mishandling of the situation beg the question: why did it take an Employment Tribunal and two years of negative publicity for the League to recognise and admit their mistake? If the communications regarding the pension fund were indeed motivated by ethical veganism and were not wrongful, this should have been clear from the outset.

The League’s statement of gratitude towards Mr Casamitjana for prompting a change in their pension fund to align better with their values comes off as disingenuous given the circumstances. The organisation could have investigated and addressed his concerns internally without resorting to dismissal.

This episode has not only damaged the League’s reputation but also cast doubt on its commitment to ethical practices and employee welfare. An organisation dedicated to the protection of animals and ethical treatment should arguably extend those same principles to its employees.

The case of Jordi Casamitjana serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of due diligence, transparency, and timely acknowledgment of errors. The League Against Cruel Sports must now work to rebuild trust with its supporters and demonstrate that it has learned from this incident to ensure that such a situation does not arise in the future.

Further Reading:

Mr J Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports, HM Courts & Tribunals Service, 11 March 2020
Jordi Casamitjana vs LACS: Reviewing The Historic Victory For Veganism, The Vegan Review, June 3, 2020
‘Ethical vegan’ settles tribunal case against charity, The Guardian, 2 March 2020
Jordi Casamitjana vegan tribunal a ‘victory for animal protection’, BBC News, 2 March 2020