A social worker who shared gender-critical beliefs online has won a claim against her employer and a professional regulator for harassment.
Rachel Meade worked for Westminster City Council in 2020 when Social Work England, the social work regulator, received a complaint about posts she had shared and liked on Facebook.
The tribunal heard Meade had shared, for example, a link to a petition to the International Olympic Committee that male athletes should not compete in female sports.
She shared a link to a petition that women have the right to maintain sex-based protections as set out in the Equality Act, including female-only spaces such as changing rooms and hospital wards.
Meade had also forwarded a post from Fair Play for Women, an organisation that campaigns for sex-based rights, linking to a Private Eye satire stating: “Boys that identify as girls go to Girl Guides. Girls that identify as boys go to Boy Scouts. Men that identify as paedophile go to either.”
Gender critical case law
Maya Forstater wins belief discrimination case over gender-critical views
A Facebook friend of Meade made a complaint to Social Work England, contending that she had signed numerous petitions published by organisations known to harass the trans community, and that she had donated money to causes that seek to erode trans rights.
Social Work England placed Meade under a ‘Fitness to Practise’ investigation, which culminated in a formal sanction (that was later withdrawn).
Because of this, Westminster City Council then suspended her on charges of gross misconduct, before giving her a final written warning.
The council started its own disciplinary investigation, warning her that she could be dismissed for misconduct. However by the time her case was heard, she had been suspended for a year, and – according to her tribunal evidence – “bullied into silence”.
The tribunal found that the way in which the disciplinary process was drawn out had constituted harassment towards the claimant, “given the overarching view taken by [Westminster City Council] was that the claimant, in the expression of her gender critical beliefs, had behaved in a manner which warranted a suspension and a disciplinary process”.
The tribunal panel also held that her Facebook posts and other communications “fell within her protected rights for freedom of thought and freedom to manifest her beliefs as protected under Articles 9 and 10 [of the Human Rights Act]”.
“In particular we do not consider that the respondents struck a fair balance between the claimant’s right to freedom of expression and the interests of those who they perceived may be offended by her Facebook posts,” it added.
It also criticised Social Work England’s failure to check the complainant’s social media history and whether his complaint could have been malicious.
It said this was “indicative of a lack of rigour in the investigation, and an apparent willingness to accept a complaint from one side of the gender self-identification/gender-critical debate without appropriate objective balance of the potential validity of different views in what is a highly polarised debate”.
The tribunal referred to recent high-profile case law in the area of gender-critical belief.
This included the case of Maya Forstater, who won a case for direct belief discrimination in 2022 after she was no longer offered consultancy work for the Center for Global Development, following complaints she had shared transphobic tweets.
Another case cited was that of Allison Bailey vs Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers. Bailey, a barrister, won her claim for discrimination after Stonewall complained to her employer (the chambers) about her involvement with LGB Alliance, an organisation that opposes the charity’s view that transgender women are women in the eyes of the law.
Commenting on her successful case, Meade said it was a “huge relief”
“This ruling makes it clear that I was entitled to contribute to the important public debate on sex and gender,” she said. “I hope it will make it easier for other regulated professionals to speak up without threats to their career and reputation.”
Her solicitor, Shazia Khan of Cole Khan Solicitors, called it a “landmark victory for common sense and free speech in the culture war on gender issues”.
“This judgment sounds an alarm for all regulators – and all employers of regulated professionals – that they must not let their processes be weaponised by activists bent on silencing the debate on freedom of speech on gender.”
Colum Conway, the chief executive of Social Work England, said: “Following the judgment, all parties have the opportunity to consider the decision and their options. As such, we do not intend to provide further comment at this time.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
A remedy hearing will take place in February.
