Tribunal finds dismissal for use of intentionally provocative email signature was not discriminatory
In a first instance decision, an Employment Tribunal has found that an employee who intentionally used a provocative email signature in protest against his employer's policy, was not discriminated against because of his beliefs.
New staff policy
In the case of Orwin v East Riding of Yorkshire Council, the employer council (Council) introduced a new policy which invited staff to add their preferred pronouns to their email signature. There was no prescribed list of acceptable pronouns and staff could choose not to add any pronouns to their email signature if preferred.
Mr Orwin (the claimant) disagreed with the policy. He holds gender-critical beliefs including that biological sex is immutable, binary and that it is not possible to change sex. In protest against the policy, the claimant added the words "XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale" to his email signature. He refused to comply with several management requests to remove the words, and he was eventually dismissed as a result.
Claims
The claimant brought claims of direct discrimination, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal following the termination of his employment. Those claims have now been dismissed by the Tribunal, which found that:
- The claimant's actions were an act of protest aimed at trying to persuade the employer to change its policy. Whilst his actions were consistent with his gender-critical beliefs, they were not a manifestation of those beliefs to the extent protected in law.
- The claimant inappropriately manifested his beliefs. There was not a sufficiently close causal nexus between the act complained of, and the claimant's gender-critical beliefs. The Council had not directly discriminated against the claimant in dismissing him. Instead, it had responded to the claimant's inappropriate manifestation of his beliefs.
- In any event, the Council's actions were proportionate. The Council is a local authority that provides services to members of the area it serves. It is also subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty. It is important for the Council to be inclusive in order to facilitate access to the services it provides. In his role, the claimant was required to come into email contact with people both within and outside the Council. His email signature risked causing the Council reputational damage.
- The Council had also tried to explore less intrusive approaches, such as asking the claimant to remove the words from his email signature, and by offering to meet with the claimant to find a mutually satisfactory way forward. The claimant refused to engage with those efforts, so the Council's eventual actions in dismissing him were fair.
Learning points
This is a first instance decision so it will not be binding on other Tribunals. It nevertheless provides an interesting example of the concept of the requirement for there to be a causal nexus between the act complained of and the protected belief in question.