Gender-critical beliefs capable of protection by Equality Act

A woman who lost her job after tweeting that people cannot change their biological sex has won her appeal against an employment tribunal

The EAT’s decision in Forstater v CGD Europe and ors, was always going to be controversial. However, for many, the ruling will be seen as an afront to human dignity and a significant step backwards for transgender rights.

The Claimant claimed that her belief – that sex is a material reality and should not be conflated with gender or gender identity (known as a gender-critical belief) – constituted a philosophical belief capable of protection under s10 of the Equality Act (which covers religion or belief).

The original Tribunal concluded that the “absolutist” nature of the Claimant’s beliefs failed to meet the full test for a philosophical belief set down in a previous case, being that the belief must:

  1. be genuinely held;
  2. be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available;
  3. be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
  4. attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and
  5. be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant’s beliefs met the first four limbs of the test but, crucially, not the last.

The EAT said that the original Tribunal had not applied the test correctly. It stated that a belief would only be excluded from protection under the last limb of the test if it were the kind of belief, the expression of which would be akin to Nazism or totalitarianism, thereby infringing other ECHR Article rights. The EAT also stated that the Claimant’s views on the binary nature of sex were consistent with current UK law.

The case will now go back to the Tribunal to determine if the treatment complained of (non-renewal of the contract etc.) was because of the Claimant’s belief.

The repercussions of this finding could be far reaching. The EAT itself accepted that such a belief had the potential to result in the harassment of trans people in some circumstances. Indeed, the original finding from the Tribunal focussed heavily on the risks associated with individuals holding such a view insisting on “referring to people by the sex she considers appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment”. Such conduct would also constitute a breach of many employer’s Equality policies.

For employers, such a decision, creates a potential minefield in seeking to balance competing protected rights. Counsel acting for the Respondent suggested a finding in these terms would create a “two-tier” system between natal women and trans women, with some trans women fearing that it will give licence to people seeking to harass them and that it would fuel transphobia. The EAT did not accept this and stated that “This judgment does not mean that employers and service providers will not be able to provide a safe environment for trans persons.” However, for those managers and HR Teams on the front line, achieving a safe environment will be much harder in the light of a judgment like this.

Similarly, the arguable narrowing of the fifth limb of the test to only the most extreme cases, could have significant implications for other controversial sets of beliefs, including, of most immediate concern, those of anti-vaxxers. The EAT concluded its line of reasoning stating that: “a person is free in a democratic society to hold any belief they wish, subject only to “some modest, objective minimum requirements”.

The EAT was keen to stress that its judgment did not mean that it was expressing any view on the merits of either side of the transgender debate and that it did not create a licence for gender-critical beliefs to ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. However, the true impact of such a decision remains to be seen. 


If you would like more information or advice relating to this article or an Employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Beth Leng on 01727 798046.

Read the latest Employment Views & Insights
They seek to understand their clients and advise accordingly to achieve the outcomes that they require for their business needs.
Chambers and Partners
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Tesco’s “Fire and Rehire” Tactics

Dismissal and reengagement, also known as “fire and rehire”, is a practice that can be used by employers when employees refuse to agree to proposed new…

Read More
Lets Talk About It SA Law
Views & Insights
Truss’ “bonfire of workers’ rights” Leaves Lawyers Unconvinced

The Conservative Party’s Liz Truss wants to review existing EU worker protections in an attempt to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy.

Read More
Corporate Night View of London SA Law
Views & Insights
Changes to Right to Work Checks

Concessions on right to work checks implemented by the Home Office in the midst of the pandemic, came to an end on 30 September 2022. Gemma Jones explains…

Read More
Phone Box with Man in a Bowler Hat
As there is so much expertise on offer from SA Law they can provide a legal expert on all areas so that it can be handled under one roof.
Legal 500
SA Law - Lightbulbs image with fillament
Views & Insights
Holiday Pay for Part Year Workers

Under the Working Time Regulations, the 5.6 weeks’ annual leave entitlement must not be pro-rated for part-year workers on permanent contracts.

Read More
Red and yellow leaves, blue sky SA Law
Views & Insights
Why does employment status matter?

How do you know if your staff are employees, workers or self-employed, and what difference does it make?

Read More
SA Law light moving
Views & Insights
What directors can learn from the collapse of NMCN

CFOs and other directors can use the collapse of NMCN to put their own house in order and help ward of the impact of recessionary forces.

Read More
Join our team puzzle piece SA Law
Views & Insights
SA Law expands employment team

SA Law is proud to welcome James Cresswell and Stephanie Clarke to its employment team, bringing the team size up to seven qualified lawyers.

Read More
They are knowledgeable, with a commercial mindset, but also down to earth and friendly so it is easy to be very honest with them.
Chambers and Partners

© SA LAW 2022

Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them alone. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.