Claimant’s claim of discrimination relating to political opinion was dismissed as the decisions relating to the claimant were made for reasons other than her political opinions.

The claimant began working for the respondent in 2020 as an Inclusion/Audience Development Co-Ordinator.  She resigned in November 2024.  The claimant holds gender critical beliefs although it is noted that she preferred the term ‘sex realist’.  It should be noted that within the contract of employment it forbade the claimant from paid or unpaid activity which may conflict with the business interest of the employer or its members unless she had the express permission of management.

The claimant spoke at a ‘Let Women Speak’ event.  The claimant, as part of that speech, stated that men needed to be kept out of women’s spaces.  The claimant received online harassment following this speech. She informed her line manager who was supportive.  Following another event the claimant’s line manager tweeted an audience picture tagging the claimant.  This led to a number of tweets tagging the British Council (one of the key funders of the respondent) criticising it and the claimant. For example, one of the tweets stated the respondent was ‘anti-trans’.  This also led to correspondence from Board members about the issue one of which stated that ‘standing up for the rights of women’ was an argument used by conservatives and religious people as part of the anti-LGBTQ/anti-Islamic right.

The respondent was seeking to do an event as part of Pride. The claimant’s line manager asked for a list of connections to be contacted about collaborating for a big screen event.  The claimant expressed reticence in contacting the LGBTQIA+ groups as some may not be well disposed towards her.  The line manager decided to send the email with the claimant as the first addressee. The claimant argued that this was designed to lead to more criticism of her and her beliefs.  This criticism did come and led to the respondent issuing a communication reassuring them of the respondent supporting their values and defending them. A statement was also put out in more general terms online and was sent to the claimant to which she said ‘That’s so good’.

A fact-finding investigation was undertaken by the respondent which was in response to stakeholder concerns.  The claimant stated she was unable to attend a meeting and issued a grievance which paused the investigation.  The claimant’s grievance was not upheld and she remained on sick leave.  Her name was removed from the Belfast Film Festival programme as she was on sick leave. Shortly after this the claimant resigned from her role.

The claimant argued that another colleague was an actual comparator as someone who did not hold the beliefs but was in the same position.  The Tribunal rejected this as the colleague did not occupy the same or a materially similar role.  The claimant’s role was regarded as being material considering its focus on inclusion/audience development. Therefore, it would have to be a hypothetical comparator working in that same role.

The claimant argued that the correspondence from Board members related to her dismissal from her role as a result of her political opinions. Whilst some of the correspondence referred to removing her name from projects, it did not go as far as stating dismissal and the Tribunal did not accept that argument.  The Tribunal had to assess whether the claimant was being treated less favourably compared to the hypothetical comparator.  The Tribunal held that she had not and stated that the focus was not on the claimant’s political opinion but rather the perceived consequences arising from the public controversy and its potential impact on the organisation.  The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the email sent to the LGBTQIA+ groups was a deliberate strategy to provoke complaints and it was as part of organising a specific public event.  On all the alleged grounds of discrimination the Tribunal found that the political opinion of the claimant was not the reason but rather was in relation to operational requirements, stakeholder concerns, contractual obligations, grievance procedures or organisational resources.

The claimant also brought a claim for constructive dismissal. The claimant argued that the grievance appeal outcome was the final straw leading to her resignation. The Tribunal found that the grievance process had been independent, impartial and free from bias.  Whilst the claimant disagreed with the outcome it, without more, did not amount to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. As a result, the claim was dismissed.

A high profile claim which caught some of the news headlines as it was going through the Tribunal.  The Tribunal decision focuses on the issue of causation and whether the decisions made in relation to the claimant were due to her political opinion or due to other factors.  For all of the arguments, it was found that the decisions were made due to a range of other factors ranging from stakeholder concerns to operational and resource matters.   This provides an important learning point in ensuring that the rationale for decisions are made clearly so as to show that it is for resource reasons or matters relating to operational policies/contracts rather than reasons relating to protected characteristics.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.