A Christian doctor who lost his job after refusing to refer to transgender people by their preferred pronouns is to challenge a legal judgment that his views on gender are ‘incompatible with human dignity’ and discriminatory.
In 2019, an employment tribunal in Birmingham dismissed Dr David Mackereth’s claim for religious discrimination and harassment after he lost his job as a health and disabilities assessor for the Department for Work and Pensions.
His appeal against employment judge Perry’s decision will be heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 28 and 29 March.
He hopes the judgment will be overturned, following the ruling in the case of Maya Forstater last year. In that case, the judge found that Forstater’s personal views on gender constituted a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.
Dr Mackereth, now an A&E doctor, lost his job as a health assessor for the DWP in 2018.
DWP’s policy states that transgender individuals should be referred to by their preferred name, gender pronoun and title. However, during a training session, Dr Mackereth said that using pronouns that did not match a person’s sex at birth would be incompatible with his Christian faith.
He was later dismissed by employment agency Advanced Personnel Management, which employed him as a contract worker for DWP, because he refused to identify clients by their relevant gender instead of the sex they were assigned at birth.
Transgender views in the courts
Christian loses discrimination claim in LGBT teaching case
Christian doctor in transgender pronoun row loses at employment tribunal
Dr Mackereth’s legal team argued that the DWP had breached his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and said that his “conscientious objection to transgenderism” is based on his belief “that it would be irresponsible and dishonest for a health professional to accommodate and/or encourage a patient’s impersonation of the opposite sex”.
His lawyers also claimed that he had been discriminated against because of his Christian faith, particularly “his belief in the truth of the Bible, and in particular, the truth of Genesis 1:27: ‘So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them’.”
However, judge Perry said that Dr Mackereth’s belief was not protected by the Equality Act 2010 as it was “‘mere opinion”.
The judge ruled that “belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism… are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others, specifically here, transgender individuals.”
Ahead of the appeal hearing, Dr Mackereth said: “My case affects everyone, not just me and Bible-believing Christians, but anyone who is concerned by compelled speech and transgender ideology being enforced on the NHS and other public services.
My case affects everyone, not just me and Bible-believing Christians, but anyone who is concerned by compelled speech and transgender ideology being enforced on the NHS and other public services.” – Dr Mackereth
“Everyone in the NHS should be able to say publicly without fear that a person cannot change sex, but instead we are being forced to accept a massive change to our concept of the medical reality of sex, with no scientific basis for that change.
“No doctor, or researcher, or philosopher, can demonstrate or prove that a person can change sex. Without intellectual and moral integrity, medicine cannot function and my 30 years as a doctor are now considered irrelevant compared to the risk that someone else might be offended.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, which is supporting Dr Mackereth with his claim, said: “This was an astonishing judgment and one that if upheld will have seismic consequences not just for the NHS and for Christians, but anyone in the workplace who is prepared to believe and say that we are created male and female.
“No protection is given to beliefs ‘incompatible with human dignity’ and ‘not worthy of respect in a democratic society’. In the past this definition has only applied to the most extreme beliefs, such as those of Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, and similar. It was and still is shocking that a judge should put the belief in the Bible in the same category.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
“This ruling cannot stand. We are determined to fight as far as possible for justice and for it to be overturned.”
