The recent tribunal case of Orwin v East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ET/6000146/2022) examined the dismissal of an employee who refused to remove a provocative email signature expressing his gender critical beliefs. The case sheds light on the complex balance between personal beliefs, workplace policies, and organisational values.
Background: Gender Critical Beliefs
The claimant held gender critical beliefs, asserting that sex is biologically binary. These beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010, as they satisfy the Grainger criteria for philosophical beliefs. However, the case hinged on whether the claimant’s dismissal stemmed from these protected views or his actions in expressing them.
The Council’s Pronoun Policy
East Riding of Yorkshire Council had introduced a policy encouraging staff to include their preferred pronouns in email signatures. The policy was aimed at fostering inclusivity and did not mandate participation, allowing employees to opt out or select any pronouns.
The claimant opposed the policy, viewing it as an endorsement of self-identification, a concept he rejected. To express his disagreement, he added “XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale” to his email signature—a statement he later refused to remove despite repeated instructions from management.
Dismissal and Legal Challenge
The claimant’s refusal to comply led to his dismissal, prompting allegations of direct discrimination, unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal. He argued that the dismissal violated his rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protect freedom of thought and expression.
Tribunal Ruling: Actions, Not Beliefs
The tribunal ruled that the dismissal was not due to the claimant’s gender critical beliefs but rather the way he chose to express them. Drawing on principles from Higgs v Farmor’s School (2023), the tribunal determined that the email signature was not a legitimate manifestation of his beliefs but a deliberately provocative act designed to mock the Council’s inclusivity efforts.
The tribunal also found no direct link between the claimant’s beliefs and his dismissal. The Council’s actions were a response to the inappropriate nature of his email signature, not an attack on his protected beliefs.
Proportionality in Disciplinary Action
The tribunal deemed the Council’s response proportionate. As a public-facing employee, the claimant’s actions risked reputational harm and contradicted the Council’s efforts to promote inclusivity, a key element of its public sector equality duty. While the tribunal criticised the Council’s email policy as poorly implemented, it upheld the dismissal as justified in the circumstances.
Key Takeaways for Employers and Employees
- Protected Beliefs and Behaviour: While philosophical beliefs like gender critical views are protected, their expression must not undermine workplace standards or policies. Provocative or disruptive actions can lead to justified disciplinary measures.
- Public Roles and Organisational Values: Employees in public-facing positions must consider the reputational impact of their actions. Employers are entitled to enforce policies that align with their values and responsibilities.
- Balancing Inclusivity and Expression: Organisations must strike a balance between fostering inclusivity and respecting employees’ rights to free expression. However, this right does not extend to actions that disrupt or contradict workplace goals.
For assistance on managing beliefs in your workplace, please contact [email protected] for advice.
