Gender-Critical Worker Dismissed for Using “Deliberately Provocative” Pronouns Loses ET Claim
In the case of Mr James Orwin v East Riding of Yorkshire Council, the gender-critical claimant brought discrimination claims on the grounds of philosophical belief and unfair dismissal against the respondent. This followed after the claimant was dismissed for refusing to remove “deliberately provocative” pronouns from his email signature.
If you believe you have experienced unfair dismissal, Redmans Solicitors would be pleased to advise you. Contact us today to discuss your situation and find out whether you may have an eligible claim. To contact our employment law specialists, either:
- Call 020 3397 3603; or
- Request a call back using our online form.
The Facts in Mr James Orwin v East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Gender-Critical Council Worker Opposed Pronouns Policy
James Orwin (the “Claimant”) commenced employment with East Riding of Yorkshire Council (the “Respondent”) in March 2018, as an ICT Projects Officer.
In April 2022, all employees working for the respondent received an email from the then Chief Executive, “inviting” them to “consider adding pronouns” to their email signatures “should [they] wish to do so”. The email assured employees that it was an individual’s choice to add them. However, the CEO was “keen to ensure that all staff know they will be supported in that choice in line with our workforce principles…”.
The claimant interpreted this invitation to use pronouns as a facilitation of gender self-identification. He possessed strong gender-critical beliefs and felt that mentioning pronouns in an email “is a gesture designed to intimidate anyone who does not embrace the contested ideology of gender identity.” On this basis, the claimant changed his email signature to state “XY-chromosome-guy/adult-human-male”.
Gender-Critical Council Worker was Suspended
The claimant contacted a senior member of staff to discuss his concerns about the new pronoun policy. This led to a subsequent meeting and email exchange, in which the claimant refused to follow the policy. He added, “The corporate policy of providing employees with the option to add preferred pronouns to an email signature, is a political position that the Council has no mandate to adopt…”
The matter was then referred to different departments of the respondent. The claimant agreed to cease using his preferred email signature until further notice. After several weeks, the respondent emailed the claimant stating that it would not be appropriate for him to use his preferred pronouns as this may be, intentionally or unintentionally, offensive.
The claimant took issue with the respondent’s decision. He then informed a manager that he would be using his preferred pronouns in his email signature. On being asked to remove relevant wording, the claimant refused to comply as a “matter of equality”. He was subsequently suspended from his role, pending an investigation.
Gender-Critical Council Worker was Dismissed for Gross Misconduct
The investigating officer interviewed the claimant, along with other staff members, regarding the claimant’s pronoun issue. The claimant explained that not being able to use his preferred pronouns in his email signature constituted discrimination on the grounds of philosophical belief, and a breach of his human right to freedom of expression.
To that, the respondent stated that the claimant’s choice of pronouns may be offensive and transphobic (without explaining how), negatively impacting the respondent’s reputation. It was then noted that the respondent’s Code of Conduct says, “You must follow the policies of the Council and must not allow your own personal or political opinions to interfere with your work.”
The claimant then questioned why he was being prohibited from using his preferred pronouns and views, while others were allowed to. Ultimately, the investigating officer concluded that the claimant not following instructions was serious insubordination. Following this finding, the claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 19 August 2022.
During this hearing, the claimant made it clear that he would not remove his preferred pronouns from his email signature. For him, it was a matter of principle, and he was unwilling to compromise on this point. He was subsequently dismissed on the basis of gross misconduct.
The claimant appealed this decision but was unsuccessful. He then brought claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of philosophical belief against the respondent.
Employment Tribunal Held that Gender-Critical Worker was not Unfairly Dismissed
The case of Mr James Orwin v East Riding and Yorkshire Council was heard by Employment Judge Miller in the Hull Employment Tribunal.
The tribunal agreed that the claimant’s gender-critical beliefs constituted the protected characteristic of philosophical belief according to section 10(2) of the Equality Act 2010. However, the tribunal found that there was no direct relation between the claimant’s actions and his gender-critical beliefs for the respondent’s actions to constitute discrimination.
Gender-Critical Claimant Mocks the Idea of Self-identification
The tribunal explained that the claimant’s use of the preferred pronouns in his email signature was an act of protest to force the respondent to change its policy. They also said that the claimant was “mocking the idea of gender self-identification.” However, they believed that “the implementation of the policy was poorly thought through and badly executed”.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on the grounds of conduct because of his failure to follow a reasonable instruction. In their judgment, the tribunal called it a reasonable response. The judgment says, “The respondent was left with no choice but to dismiss the claimant in the light of a deliberate refusal to comply with a reasonable (and lawful) management instruction…”
The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was not upheld.
Your Philosophical Belief in the Workplace
As philosophical beliefs constitute a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, employees are lawfully entitled to practice those beliefs freely in the workplace. It is therefore unlawful for employees to be discriminated against, harassed, or treated unfavourably because of holding or practising such philosophical beliefs.
Following the case of Grainger plc & ors v Nicholson, to be legally classified as a philosophical belief, it must:
- Be genuinely held,
- Be a belief rather than an opinion or viewpoint,
- Relate to a substantial aspect of human life,
- Attain a certain level of seriousness and importance,
- Be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not be incompatible with human dignity or conflict with others’ fundamental rights.
If you believe you have been unfairly dismissed or suffered discrimination (for instance due to gender-critical beliefs, as in this case), contact us today. Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists with years of experience.
We will be able to determine whether you have an eligible claim and help to navigate you through the legal process. Begin your journey with us now by:
- Calling 020 3397 3603; or
- Requesting a consultation via our online form.