‘Gender critical’ beliefs are protected by Equality Act, rules EAT
In a landmark case, a woman whose contract was not renewed after she expressed the view that transgender women are not women has won her appeal against an Employment Tribunal ruling.
Maya Forstater’s contract with the Centre for Global Development ceased after a number of her colleagues complained about social media posts expressing her beliefs about sex and gender, including her opposition to the proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), which would allow trans people to self-identify and legally transition from the gender assigned to them at birth without a medical diagnosis.
This prompted an Employment Tribunal where she argued her beliefs should be legally protected. In this instance, she lost; the ruling stated that her 'gender critical' views didn’t qualify as a protected belief (as listed in the Equality Act) because they degrade the rights of trans people. Forstater appealed this ruling at the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
At the Tribunal last week, High Court judge Mr Justice Chowdhury said the original Tribunal had "erred in law", and that while her views may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing, they "must be tolerated in a pluralist society".
However, Mr Chowdhury did add in the ruling that:
"This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can 'mis-gender' trans persons with impunity. The claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone else."
After the verdict was handed down on Friday morning, Ms Forstater said:
"I am delighted to have been vindicated. I lost my job simply for expressing a view that is true and important, and held by the great majority of people in this country: sex matters. Being a woman is a material reality. It is not a costume or a feeling. Institutions that pretend sex doesn't matter become hostile places for women, in particular.
"After this judgment, employers and service-providers that ignore sex and silence women who object, need to consider whether they are acting unlawfully, and the substantial legal risks they face if they do not change their approach."
Amanda Glassman, Executive Vice President of CGD, said:
"The decision is disappointing and surprising because we believe Judge Tayler got it right when he found this type of offensive speech causes harm to trans people, and therefore could not be protected under the Equality Act. Today's decision is a step backwards for inclusivity and equality for all. We're currently considering the various paths forward with our lawyers."
related content
