robbryanassociates

Recent Cases of Interest

In business principles, contracts, Employment law, Equality, Uncategorized on September 27, 2021 at 10:54 am

Forstater v CGD Europe and Others – Discrimination on the Grounds of Philosophical Belief

The Equality Act 2010 protects against discrimination based on 9 protected characteristics, namely age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity.

In the recent case of Forstater v CGD Europe and others, Ms Forstater registered a claim with the Employment Tribunal that her contract with CGD Europe, who are a registered research or think-tank charity, was not renewed because of her gender-critical beliefs.

Before deciding whether there was any wrongdoing on the part of CGD Europe, the Tribunal had first to consider whether her belief was indeed protected by the Equality Act.   

In a complex scenario centred around transgender rights and identity, Ms Forstater’s viewpoint was, in a nutshell, that biological sex was real, important and unable to be changed. Her claim raised the debate about the scope of trans rights and the relevance of an individual’s biological sex, versus their gender identity.

Initially the Tribunal found that Ms Forstater’s beliefs were contrary to trans rights previously established by the European Court of Human Rights. However, the Tribunal’s decision has now been overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, who considered that Ms Forstater’s views were deserving of respect and that only the most extreme beliefs should be excluded from protection under the Equality Act.

Ms Forstater’s claim has therefore now been referred back to the Employment Tribunal for them to consider whether CGD Europe’s original decision not to renew her contract was discriminatory.

Follows v Nationwide Building Society – Indirect Associative Discrimination

Ms Follows had been employed by Nationwide Building Society as a Senior Lending Manager and for the last 7 years had been home-based allowing her to look after her disabled mother.

As a result of a re-structuring exercise the society decided to reduce the overall number of Lending Managers and stipulated that those to be retained must be office-based. As a result, Ms Follows made a claim to the Employment Tribunal of unfair dismissal, indirect associative discrimination and indirect sex discrimination.

The tribunal upheld all of these claims against the Nationwide on the basis that the stipulation about office working put Ms Follows at a disadvantage because of her association with her disabled mother and that her dismissal had taken place without reasonable steps being taken to avoid that disadvantage.

This is the first time that a claim of indirect associative discrimination has been upheld since the introduction of the legislation in the UK.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: