Cambridgeshire County Council to Pay £63,000 in Compensation After ‘Gender-Fluid Dachshund’ Dispute

In Ms Elizabeth Pitt v Cambridgeshire County Council, the claimant was subjected to unfavourable treatment because of her expressing gender critical views during an LGBTQIA+ Group meeting. The tribunal found that this constituted discrimination on the grounds of belief and awarded compensation.

Here, we consider the facts of and judgment in the case and discuss how employers might prevent belief discrimination at work.

If you believe you have suffered belief discrimination in the workplace, contact Redmans Solicitors today. Our employment law specialists will be pleased to advise on whether you are eligible to bring a discrimination claim.

To get in touch, you can:

The Facts of Elizabeth Pitt v Cambridgeshire County Council

Cambridgeshire County Council: Gender Critical Beliefs are “Non-Inclusive and Transphobic”

Elizabeth Pitt (the claimant) worked for Cambridgeshire County Council (the respondent) as a social worker. She is a lesbian and was part of the respondent’s LGBTQIA+ Group. She attended a Zoom meeting of the Group in April 2023.

During the meeting, one attendee spoke about how he considered his dachshund to be gender-fluid. He further mentioned clothing his dog in dresses to spark conversations about gender. The claimant, together with a colleague, then proceeded to express some gender critical views which some attendees found offensive.  One attendee described the claimant’s tone as “really aggressive” and dubbed her contributions as “inappropriate” and “nasty opinions.” The other Group attendees raised a formal complaint against the claimant.

The respondent arranged a meeting to discuss the complaint. It was suggested that the Group meeting was not an appropriate place to express such views, which the claimant contested. Following the meeting, the respondent prepared a report, stating that the claimant’s comments had been “non-inclusive and transphobic” and “inappropriate and ill-judged”, causing “significant offence”.

Cambridgeshire County Council’s Reaction to Gender Critical Beliefs was Allegedly Discriminatory

A letter was sent to the claimant following the meeting. She was instructed to act in a way that “ensured her personal views and beliefs did not manifest themselves in comments or actions in the workplace that might discriminate against others on grounds of a protected characteristic.” She was prohibited from attending any further LGBTQIA+ Group meetings or contacting Group members.

The claimant raised a grievance about the letter. Regarding the outcome of the grievance, she asked how the conclusion on the expression of her views had been reached, but she received no substantive response. The claimant asserted that the respondent’s reaction to her expression of gender critical beliefs constituted harassment or direct discrimination.

The claimant brought a claim against the respondent for workplace discrimination on the grounds of her gender critical beliefs and/or sexual orientation.

Judgment in Elizabeth Pitt v Cambridgeshire County Council

This discrimination claim was heard in the Cambridge Employment Tribunal by Employment Judge Michell. The respondent accepted that the claimant’s gender critical beliefs constituted a philosophical belief under section 10 of the Equality Act. However, it argued that the expression of those views had been “aggressive and confrontational.”

Under section 26 of the Equality Act, harassment occurs when there is “unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic”. The impact of such conduct must be to violate a person’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for that person.

The tribunal held that the respondent’s conduct had indeed amounted to harassment related to the claimant’s gender critical beliefs and/or sexual orientation (both protected characteristics). The claimant was awarded £55,910.15 for loss of earnings plus interest and compensation for injury to feelings. She also received £8,000 towards her legal costs.

A spokesperson for Cambridgeshire County Council has said that it will be reviewing its internal policies and procedures following this judgment. He stated that Cambridgeshire County Council is aiming to: “create a safe, inclusive and compassionate environment for people to work in and recognise this needs to be balanced with everyone being entitled to express their own views and beliefs.”

Similar Gender Critical Belief Cases

Cases relating to gender critical beliefs are becoming increasingly prevalent in Employment Tribunals. Furthermore, according to case law to date, Employment Tribunals appear inclined to categorise gender critical beliefs as a protected belief under section 10 of the Equality Act. This means that treating an employee unfavourably because of their gender critical beliefs is likely to constitute workplace discrimination.

In the case of Roz Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crises Centre, the Employment Tribunal found that Roz Adams had felt compelled to resign after her employer accused her of being transphobic for her gender critical beliefs. Ms Adams successfully brought claims of discrimination and constructive dismissal.

Similarly, in Meade v Westminster City Council and Social Work England, the council suspended Ms Meade and put her through its disciplinary process after colleagues complained about her expressing gender critical views on her Facebook page. The tribunal found that the expressed beliefs had not been transphobic but rather legitimate manifestations of Ms Meade’s beliefs.

Preventing Belief Discrimination in the Workplace

It is important for employers to achieve a balance between allowing freedom of expression and ensuring all views are respected. Unfortunately, freedom of expression can often slide easily into heated debate and then to conflict in the workplace. Employers must strive to remain impartial in such situations and managers should refrain from voicing their personal views on any topic under discussion.

Employers should consider updating their internal policies on equality, including those relating to harassment and discrimination at work. These should include reference to philosophical beliefs and clarify that the expression of these are protected under the Equality Act. They should set out the standard of conduct expected from employees and the consequences of failing to adhere to such standards.

In Elizabeth Pitt v Cambridgeshire County Council, the tribunal advised the council to introduce freedom of belief and speech training in the workplace. This indicates that all employers would be well advised to do the same. This can ensure employees understand the importance of respecting each other’s beliefs and how they might be expressed.

Employee Rights Regarding Belief Discrimination

The Equality Act prohibits discrimination or harassment on the grounds of holding or not holding a specific philosophical belief. This must be more than a mere opinion but rather “cogent, serious, and apply to an important aspect of human life or behaviour.” According to case law, it would seem that gender critical beliefs are capable of falling into this category.

As such, it is unlawful for employees or job candidates to be treated less favourably because of their philosophical beliefs. It is also unlawful for an employee or job candidate to suffer unwanted conduct because of their philosophical beliefs.

If you believe you have experienced belief discrimination at work, Redmans Solicitors can help. Our friendly team of employment lawyers have considerable insight into discrimination claims and can advise on your options.

To begin, either: