The Fair Employment Tribunal in Belfast has, for the first time, ruled on discrimination and harassment claims based on gender critical beliefs as a form of political opinion, in the closely watched case of Sara O'Gorman (Morrison) v Belfast Film Festival Limited. Although the claimant lost, the judgment offers useful early guidance for Northern Ireland employers navigating this fast-moving area of law.

Gender critical beliefs, broadly the view that sex is biological and immutable, are treated in Great Britain as a philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act 2010, provided they meet the threshold test set out in Grainger plc v Nicholson. Claims relying on these beliefs have grown steadily in recent years, with cases such as Forstater v CGD Europe and Higgs v Farmor’s School testing how far employers can go in restricting their expression. A key theme running through this case law is the distinction between simply holding a belief, which is protected outright, and manifesting it through speech or conduct, which can in some circumstances be restricted if objectively justified.

Northern Ireland has no direct equivalent to this framework, and Morrison is the first case in which its tribunals have had to grapple with these issues. We outline the key issues arising out of this case below.

The claimant, Sara O'Gorman (known professionally as Sara Morrison), worked as Belfast Film Festival’s Inclusion/Audience Development Co-ordinator from February 2020 until her resignation in November 2024. In April 2023 she attended and spoke at a “Let Women Speak” rally in Belfast, an event linked to campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen (also known as Posey Parker) focusing on women's rights and gender identity. In her speech, she supported women's rights, criticised several named women's sector organisations, and called for men to be kept out of women's spaces.

The claimant’s contract required her to seek permission before activities that might conflict with her employer's interests, which she did not do before speaking. She subsequently faced online abuse, including accusations of transphobia, fascism and bigotry.

The situation escalated over the following months, board members raised internal concerns, and external stakeholders, including LGBTQI+ groups, questioned whether they would continue working with the organisation. The employer publicly stated it was "reviewing concerns raised relating to diversity matters" and opened a fact-finding investigation into whether the claimant's conduct was compatible with her role which involved community outreach and stakeholder management. The investigation stalled when the claimant went on sick leave, and she later resigned, alleging discriminatory treatment. Notably, the employer’s own grievance appeal found no evidence that the claimant’s beliefs were transphobic or fascist and accepted her general right to speak at such events, but concluded the employer had little choice but to investigate given the concerns raised.

Claims dismissed in their entirety

The claimant brought claims of direct discrimination and harassment on the ground of political opinion under the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (FETO), later adding a claim for constructive dismissal (where an employee resigns because of their employer’s conduct and treats themselves as dismissed). She relied on thirteen separate incidents, ranging from an internal email criticising her participation in the rally, to the investigation itself and more routine matters such as sick pay and the return of her office keys. Following an eight-day hearing in November 2025, the tribunal dismissed all of her claims on 17 July 2026.

Crucially, both sides accepted that the claimant's gender critical, or “sex realist”, views counted as a political opinion under FETO. This meant the tribunal did not need to apply the stricter test used in Great Britain (the Grainger criteria) to decide whether the belief was protected in the first place.

This reflects a key difference between the two jurisdictions. Northern Ireland has no direct equivalent to the Equality Act 2010’s religion or belief protection. Instead, it protects political opinion, a concept interpreted broadly by NI courts to cover any opinion relating to government policy or the running of the state, including opinions a person is merely believed to hold.

For each of the thirteen incidents relied upon, the tribunal asked whether the claimant’s political opinion was the real reason for her treatment. It found the actual reasons were operational necessity, contractual requirements, administrative error, or genuine concern about the impact on stakeholder relationships, not the claimant’s opinion itself. To test this, the tribunal compared her treatment to that of a hypothetical employee in the same role as the claimant without her political opinion, and found that, in every instance, treatment would have been the same. On the whole, the tribunal found that the employer took a justified and measured approach to dealing with the complaints and stakeholder issues which arose as a result of her attendance at the rally.

On manifestation of her belief, meaning the outward expression of her belief through speech or conduct, the tribunal did not draw the same distinction seen in GB cases such as Higgs v Farmor’s School, which separates the (protected) holding or manifesting of a belief from the (potentially justifiable) manner of its manifestation. Instead, the tribunal simply asked whether the treatment was because of the claimant’s opinion or its manifestation, or because of the employer's genuine reaction to operational consequences, such as harm to stakeholder relationships? Because the claimant lost on that single question (i.e. it determined her treatment was purely a result of operational and other reasons), the tribunal did not need to carry out the GB-style justification exercise, leaving open whether NI tribunals will adopt that approach in future.

The claimant’s harassment claim failed for similar reasons. Even where a link to her political opinion could be established, the tribunal found the conduct was not serious enough to violate her dignity or create a hostile or offensive environment.

The constructive dismissal claim also failed. The claimant needed to show a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, serious enough to destroy the employment relationship. The tribunal found no such breach, whether looking at the incidents individually or as a whole, and rejected her argument that the final grievance appeal outcome was a “last straw” completing an earlier pattern of breach, finding instead that it was a genuine and reasoned decision.

Morrison offers both reassurance and a warning for Northern Ireland employers:

The tribunal ultimately dismissed all of the claimant’s claims, finding that her political opinion was not the reason for how she was treated at any stage. That outcome gives employers some confidence that properly evidenced, impact-focused action will not automatically amount to discrimination. The following points set out the practical considerations for employers arising from the judgment:

• Genuine, evidence based concerns can justify investigation. Employers can investigate an employee’s public conduct without this amounting to discrimination or harassment, provided there is a genuine, well evidenced concern about operational or reputational impact, separate from simply disagreeing with the belief itself.
  
  
• Focus on impact. The tribunal was reassured that the investigation targeted the impact of the claimant’s actions on her stakeholder facing role, not the content of her views. Independent input. Involving independent external HR advisers in the grievance process was treated as a safeguard against bias.
  
  
• Contractual permission clauses can help. A contractual requirement to seek permission before external activities that might conflict with the employer’s interests was a relevant factor in the tribunal’s reasoning.
  This is not a green light. The outcome is highly fact specific, and Northern Ireland’s single-question approach to manifestation of belief differs from the more structured approach in Great Britain, so the result may not translate directly to future cases.
  
  
• Keep policies under review. This is a fast-evolving area of law across both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and employers should keep their approach to controversial or potentially offensive views under regular review.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.