Gender Critical Researcher Awarded Over £100,000 in Compensation
Maya Forstater, the claimant in a high-profile case has been awarded £105,778.47 in compensation for her direct discrimination claim relating to her expression of gender-critical beliefs.
Background
In the case of Forstater v CDG Europe and others, Ms Forstater was a Visiting Fellow at CGD. Her contract was not renewed after she posted tweets about gender identity issues on social media which offended a number of transgender people, as well as some of her colleagues. She brought a number of claims in the employment tribunal including that the non-renewal of her contract amounted to discrimination on grounds of her belief that sex is immutable and should not be conflated with gender identity issues. Ms Forstater's direct discrimination and victimisation claims were upheld. The Tribunal ordered a separate remedies hearing to determine the value of any compensation to be awarded to Ms Forstater.
Remedy Calculation
Where there has been a successful discrimination claim, compensation can be awarded for injury to feelings. The Tribunal took into account that the discrimination against Ms Forstater was significant as the Respondents' actions affected her status with the organisation as well as the wider professional sector. The consequences of these acts had a long-lasting impact on Ms Forstater. Taking this into account, the Tribunal awarded Ms Forstater the sum of £25,000 for injury to feelings.
The tribunal also awarded Ms Forstater an additional £2,000 in aggravated damages relating to public statements made on behalf of the Respondents following a previous hearing, which implied criticism of Ms Forstater and suggested her views were bigoted.
The Tribunal awarded a further £14,000 to reflect Ms Forstater's loss of earnings, and £50,000 for the loss of a chance of being offered future employment. Approximately £15,000 of interest was also held to be due.
Learning Points
This significant first instance decision demonstrates the potential high cost to employers who fail to balance the rights of gender critical staff against colleagues with potentially competing views. The decision shows how, in trying to respect one set of protected beliefs, CGD undermined another.