Background:

The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Relationship Manager.  She has been in this position since March 2008.   The issue arising relates to the claimant’s ‘gender critical beliefs’ which were described by the claimant as:

I believe that sex is real, important, immutable, not be conflated with "gender identity" (what sex a person feels they are or would prefer to be. I do not believe that "trans women are women" ("trans women" are men who think they are women) that "trans men are men" (trans men are women who think they are men). I understand that both my "gender critical" beliefs and my lack of belief that "trans women are women" are a protected belief for the purposes of sections 4 and 10 of the Equality Act 2010.

This arose when the LGB Alliance was awarded a grant by the London Community Foundation.   Following social media reaction to the grant it was suspended.   This related to the alleged transphobia from the group and the claimant sent an email noting the accusation.

A drop-in session was hosted by the respondent and 411 attended the Teams meeting. The claimant questioned why there were concerns about LGB Alliance and it was stated by Simon Mellor of the respondent that the Alliance is ‘divisive’ and has a history of anti-trans-exclusionary activity. Mr Mellor had outlined his personal opinion stating that he did not feel the group should have received the funding.  The claimant was the only person in the meeting to challenge the view that the Alliance were anti-transgender. The claimant made a formal complaint about Mr Mellor’s actions stating that they were not in compliance with the Nolan Principles in Public Life.

In May 2022 an email was sent to all staff from another employee referring to a ‘allies support sheet’ and a petition.  The nature of the petition was having senior members of staff with homophobic/anti-trans views.  There were comments which also related the LGB Alliance to neo-Nazis, homophobes and Islamaphobes.  The employee setting up the petition was suspended but the petition remained visible for over a day.

The claimant brought a claim citing harassment based upon her protected beliefs.

Outcome:

It was agreed between the parties that the claimant’s gender critical views were a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010.    The Tribunal stated that Mr Mellor’s comments at the meeting had opened the door for the comments and petition that had come after.   The Tribunal stated that it was inappropriate for those personal views to be expressed and for the leader of the meeting to show solidarity with one side of the debate.   In linking this to the law on harassment, the Tribunal were satisfied that the emails and comments (relating to the petition) were unwanted conducted and that they violated the claimant’s dignity thus creating a hostile environment for the claimant.   The Tribunal found that Mr Mellor expressing his personal view in the Teams meeting did not amount to harassment.  The level of compensation is still to be decided by the Tribunal.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

When it comes to gender it is clear to see that there are clearly strong opinions on the matter as has been seen with the reforms in Scotland, relationship education in schools and other matters such as those seen in sport.   The workplace is no different and employees will have various opinions on these matters.  It is important to recognise that where there are beliefs on these matters then they are likely to be protected, as seen here with the ‘gender critical’ beliefs of the claimant. As a protected characteristic employers must ensure that the definition of harassment is considered and that there is no unwanted conduct which would have the purpose of creating a hostile, intimidating, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.