A judge has recommended that a council’s mandatory e-learning be updated to include ‘freedom of belief’ training as part of an employment tribunal decision in a philosophical belief discrimination case relating to a ‘gender-fluid’ dachshund.
Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) has agreed to pay social worker Elizabeth Pitt £56,000 after she was found to have been discriminated against and harassed on grounds relating to her gender-critical beliefs and sexual orientation. The tribunal also ordered it to pay £8,000 in legal costs.
Pitt, who is a lesbian, was reported to the council for making allegedly transphobic remarks during an LGBTQIA+ Ally and Support Group meeting held over Zoom last year.
The meeting began with one attendee explaining that he identified his dachshund as gender-fluid. He explained that he put a dress on his dog to prompt debate about gender. The conversation continued with Pitt and a lesbian colleague allegedly expressing some “nasty opinions” in a “really aggressive tone”.
Freedom of belief
Gender-critical worker loses preferred pronouns case
NHS trust faces legal action over trans changing room policy
CCC wrote to the claimant in April 2023 telling her that a formal concern had been raised in relation to “some views” Pitt and her colleague had expressed which were “perceived to be of an inappropriate and offensive nature”. It told Pitt a meeting would be held “to hear the views you expressed”.
Pitt denied having been aggressive in tone but accepted she could be quite direct. CCC management asked if she felt the meeting was an appropriate place to discuss her views. She responded by questioning what the group was for if it was not for that type of discussion.
In June 2023, CCC prepared a report saying it perceived Pitt’s comments “to be non-inclusive and transphobic” and that they had “caused significant offence”. It added that her comments had been “particularly inappropriate and ill-judged” and had “a detrimental impact on the mental health and wellbeing” of the complainants.
CCC instructed Pitt in writing 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”. It asked her not to contact any members of the LGBTQIA+ group or attend their events. CCC told her the instruction was part of an informal stage of its disciplinary procedure.
Pitt raised a grievance in relation to the instruction. The tribunal heard that in response to the grievance outcome, the claimant wrote: “There is nothing in the grievance outcome that explains why it has been decided that there was an issue with the way my beliefs were expressed, so how has the conclusion on the expression of my beliefs been reached?” She did not receive a substantive answer to that question.
At tribunal, CCC accepted Pitt’s gender-critical beliefs amounted to a philosophical belief but that it was the manner in which she and her colleague promoted their views which had been “aggressive and confrontational – for example, talking over people and not allowing others to speak”.
On the morning of the first day of the final hearing in July 2024, counsel for CCC told the tribunal that it admitted liability for harassment relating to the claimant’s gender-critical beliefs, as well as her sexual orientation.
The parties in the case used the rest of the day, with the tribunal’s approval, to discuss the remedy and they agreed on the amount the claimant ought to receive and proposed terms.
In submissions over whether CCC should pay legal costs, Naomi Cunningham, for the claimant, told the tribunal that CCC’s own documentation “makes it unequivocally clear that the investigation, the investigation report and the management instruction were all in reality motivated by the claimant’s manifestation of her protected belief”.
She asserted that “the central contention on which the respondent’s resistance to the claim is based [i.e. the manner not message] is flatly contradicted by its own contemporaneous documentation”.
In judgment, the tribunal found that Pitt succeeded in her claims that CCC’s conduct amounted to harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act relating to gender-critical belief and sexual orientation.
By consent between parties, the tribunal ordered CCC to pay Pitt £29,400 for loss of gross earnings, plus £1,500 interest; £22,000 for injury to feelings, plus interest of £2,200; and £900 for counselling fees. This totalled £55,900 and is in addition to a £8,000 contribution to Pitt’s costs.
Freedom of belief training
Employment Judge Paul Michell recommended that CCC’s mandatory e-learning be revised to include a section on “freedom of belief and speech in the workplace”. He said this should be drafted by the employment barrister Anya Palmer, who represented Maya Forstater in her landmark gender-critical belief case.
He added that the training should be made available to all CCC employees within the next six months.
A spokesman for Cambridgeshire County Council said it aimed “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”.
He added: “We will reflect carefully on this final outcome, as well as undertaking a review of our policies and procedures accordingly.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
