A former senior manager has lost his claim for discrimination against his ‘non-feminism’ belief, after an employment tribunal ruled that he was the ‘author of his own downfall’.
The tribunal panel in the case of Legge v Environment Agency said it was “slightly perplexed” by the claimant’s philosophical belief of non-feminism, adding that the claimant’s non-feminist view “was in fact discriminatory in itself”.
Belief discrimination
OU agrees settlement in gender-critical belief case
“It would appear to the tribunal a feminist is simply about all genders having equal rights and opportunities as men,” the judgment said.
Mr Legge began working for the Environment Agency in 2005 and by 2012 he was employed as an estates technical manager, a grade 7 role.
All grade 7 roles, which reported into the executive leadership team, were filled by men and the tribunal heard that in 2018 a new manager, Ms Larmour was tasked with modernising the department.
Originally the claimant supported Larmour but the relationship quickly deteriorated and he was not happy with intentions to improve diversity and inclusivity. The tribunal heard that this was at odds with his non-feminist views.
Performance problems
In early 2020, Legge’s performance review found improvement required and he was awarded a rating of “approaching expectations”. While other members of the team had received similar grades, the tribunal heard that Legge was hostile and uncooperative in response.
By March, Larmour was concerned about Legge achieving an objective on the improvement plan, while also caring for his son during the first Covid lockdown. To avoid the problem becoming a capability issue, after discussions with HR, she offered Legge “special paid leave” for 12 weeks to sort out schooling and caring for his child. He took this leave.
The tribunal said this was clearly supportive of his childcare responsibilities for his son, for whom he was a joint carer.
Shortly after Larmour moved to a new role, Legge submitted a grievance naming her. The tribunal heard that the grievance was “extremely long, lengthy and wordy”, it referenced gender and discrimination, but made no reference to any philosophical beliefs.
Moonlighting discovery
While preparing her evidence for the grievance, Lamour had been concerned about the claimant’s hostility towards her and her own safety. When searching for him online, she discovered Legge was in fact a practising psychotherapist.
She informed Mr Farrington, Legge’s new manager, who instigated an investigation process. The claimant had not declared this outside interest or discussed it with any of his line managers.
The grievance was partly upheld but concluded there had been no evidence that the reason for the Legge’s treatment was anything to do with his gender. The claimant did not appeal.
In the meantime, Mr Back carried out an investigation into Legge’s alleged misconduct of “moonlighting” as a psychotherapist, including using the Environment Agency’s equipment to run another business.
Back confirmed that Legge advertised his psychotherapy sessions on three websites, showing availability in mornings, evenings and weekends. He liaised with colleagues who agreed they would use an inquiry agent, who proceeded to book a therapy session for the next day.
Despite the appointment being made for a time when Legge had two Environment Agency meetings, the session went ahead.
When the allegations regarding the psychotherapy business were put to him, Legge accepted he had been operating an external business, that he failed to declare this, but denied doing this during normal working hours.
Legge was suspended in March 2021 and by the time the disciplinary panel met, it had collected evidence that in the previous 13 months, Legge had carried out more than 500 consultations, earning more than £37,000.
Most allegations against Legge were upheld, including that his dishonesty met the Environment Agency’s definition of fraud, and he was dismissed. He appealed but the decision was upheld.
Evasive evidence
The tribunal said it found Legge’s evidence evasive and unhelpful. For example, one day, by his own admission, he held therapy sessions at a time for which he had declined a work meeting with his boss. To cover this up he inserted a false description of his activity in his Outlook diary.
The judge said the claimant, under cross-examination, refused to accept that this conduct was, putting it bluntly, dishonest.
“You cannot escape the conclusion that caring responsibilities, homeschooling and lack of performance were being used to cover for his ever-increasing therapy sessions whilst employed by a public body in receipt of a full salary,” read the judgment.
The panel found that the numerous specific issues raised in Legge’s discrimination claims had “nothing to do with sex or belief”.
Discriminatory belief
Regarding non-feminism, the panel applied the Grainger criteria, saying: “The tribunal accepts the claimant genuinely held the non-feminist belief. That it is just about a belief, not an opinion or viewpoint, although even that is questionable.
“Whether his belief is weighty and can be described as a substantial aspect of human life is again questionable. Likewise, on the question of attaining a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. It is certainly not worthy of respect, or compatible with human dignity and does conflict with the rights of others.
“In fact, the tribunal felt that his maintaining his non-feminist view was in fact discriminatory in itself.”
It added: “As to the claimant’s non-belief, all the respondent’s witnesses gave clear and cogent evidence that whilst they supported equality, diversity and inclusion in the workplace, they do not accept feminism in the way the claimant describes that, or that there is some agenda or conspiracy from higher management to remove males from management positions, or have in some way been looking to appoint females at every opportunity.”
The judgment concluded: “Largely everything that happened to the claimant is substantiated and the reasons for it were totally unrelated to the claimant’s sex or beliefs. In fact, the claimant was in many ways the author of his own downfall and the action of the respondents related either to the Claimant’s own capability or conduct.”
It ruled that direct discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief, sex discrimination and victimisation were not well founded. It added that an unfair dismissal claim, which Legge withdrew and then attempted to reinstate, would have also failed.
Finding that Legge had behaved “unreasonably”, it also ordered him to pay £20,000 of the Environment Agency’s legal costs.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Employee relations opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more Employee Relations jobs
