Professor Jo Phoenix has agreed to an undisclosed remedy settlement with the Open University after her claim for harassment and discrimination due to her gender-critical beliefs succeeded at the employment tribunal.
The tribunal heard that Phoenix was likened to “a racist uncle at the Christmas dinner table” and accused of transphobia because of her belief that biological sex is immutable, real and important, and that sex cannot be conflated with gender identity.
Phoenix claimed she felt forced to leave her job as a professor of criminology because the organisation failed to support and protect her from belief-related discrimination and harassment.
Gender-critical belief cases
Full coverage of the Phoenix v OU judgment
Gender-critical social worker wins harassment claim
Forstater wins £100k in gender critical belief judgment
Petition criticising gender-critical beliefs was harassment, tribunal finds
In Phoenix v The Open University, the tribunal found complaints of direct discrimination and harassment because of her gender-critical beliefs, constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were all well founded but dismissed a claim for post-employment discrimination.
The remedy was to be decided at a further hearing, but Phoenix announced this morning that she had agreed to a settlement with the Open University.
In 2018 and 2019, Phoenix expressed gender-critical views including concerns about self-identification for gender reassignment and about the relationship between the LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall and UK universities.
The employment tribunal found she was “effectively told off” by OU management for expressing her gender-critical beliefs.
After she launched the Gender Critical Research Network, a research group focused on the importance of sexed bodies in different academic disciplines, in 2021, an open letter protesting against it was signed by 368 OU staff and postgraduate researchers, including some of Phoenix’s colleagues.
Saved as a publicly accessible document, it called on the OU vice chancellor to withdraw support for the GCRN, affirm its position as a trans-inclusive employer and commit to supporting staff and students in a “trans-hostile external and internal environment”.
Phoenix told the tribunal that it was “deeply humiliating, both personally and professionally, to be condemned by colleagues in this public way”.
The tribunal found in January 2023 that Phoenix’s resignation from the OU in 2021 amounted to constructive dismissal as the OU had breached the implied term of trust and confidence when colleagues had published the open letter and “harassing” tweets.
Writing on X today, Phoenix said she was relieved there was no need for a remedy hearing: “I am sad that it took nearly five years of my life, over £230K and an employment tribunal to establish what I knew all along which is simply this: Gender-affirmative academics need to stop acting unlawfully when it comes to gender-critical academics. I would add – they need to grow up and start acting like professionals instead of students playing union politics. There could be legal consequences.
“Gender-affirmative claims about the ‘harms’ of our beliefs do not justify their hostility towards us in our workplace and do not stand up in a court of law. University managers – from vice-chancellor level down – need to act to protect us against the lies, bullying and harassment of our colleagues. Harassment, discrimination and bullying is not academic debate or free speech and it is our managers’ responsibilities to set the tone in universities.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Speaking after the judgment in January, Professor Tim Blackman, OU vice-chancellor, said: “We acknowledge that we can learn from this judgment and are considering the findings very carefully. We are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of everyone involved in the case and acknowledge the significant impact it has had on Prof Phoenix, the witnesses and many other colleagues. Our priority has been to protect freedom of speech while respecting legal rights and protections.”
