United Kingdom

2022 has seen further case law on the issue of the potential conflict between expressions of gender-critical beliefs in the workplace and proponents…

This was due to be heard in the EAT this summer, but was postponed due to the recusal of one of the EAT lay members. When the appeal is heard, the issue will be whether the reason for the detriments in the case was properly separable from Ms. As for the investigation outcome, the tribunal found that this was materially influenced by disapproval of Ms. The tribunal found that the chambers posted the tweet because of belief - they disagreed with Ms. Similarly to Forstater, the tribunal found that Ms. Applying Forstater, the Employment Tribunal confirmed that Ms. It noted that the DWP had tried to explore how to accommodate Dr. The facts, in brief, were that Ms. The issue was resolved in June 2021, when the EAT in Forstater decided that they are protected. Therefore, the communications could not be disassociated from the beliefs themselves, meaning that CGD's decision to not renew her contract was unlawful discrimination. The EAT confirmed the position this year in Mackereth. Forstater had expressed her beliefs, and not the fact that she held them.