In Orwin v East Riding of Yorkshire Council the Employment Tribunal considered whether an employee had been discriminated against for his gender critical beliefs when he was dismissed for refusing to remove an email signature using preferred pronouns that were intentionally provocative.
Background
Mr Orwin was an ICT Project Officer employed by East Riding of Yorkshire Council. The Council had introduced a policy encouraging employees to add pronouns to their email signatures to promote inclusivity for individuals who identify their gender differently from their biological sex. While participation was optional, the policy aimed to foster a more inclusive environment for all gender identities.
Mr Orwin opposed the policy, arguing that it posed a safeguarding risk to vulnerable individuals, including concerns about the protection of women's spaces. In protest, he added the phrase "XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale" to his internal email signature. This sparked a series of discussions between Mr Orwin and his managers, who instructed him to remove the signature due to concerns that it could be perceived as transphobic and offensive.
Mr Orwin refused to comply, indicating that he might extend the use of this signature to external communications, a move perceived as a pressure tactic to force the Council to reconsider the policy. Consequently, Mr Orwin was suspended, and a disciplinary process led to his dismissal for gross misconduct due to his failure to adhere to reasonable management instructions. This dismissal was upheld upon appeal.
Mr Orwin argued that his dismissal was due to a "legitimate manifestation or expression of his (gender critical) beliefs," claiming direct discrimination, unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal.
Decision
The Employment Tribunal held that Mr Orwin's email signature was a deliberately provocative act meant to mock gender self-identification rather than an expression of his own gender identity. Therefore, the Council's actions to dismiss him were in response to an inappropriate manifestation of Mr Orwin's beliefs, rather than because he held gender critical beliefs, and the Council's decision to dismiss was not direct discrimination.
The Employment Tribunal also went on to find that the dismissal was neither unfair nor wrongful. The Employment Tribunal determined that Mr Orwin's dismissal was a proportionate response to his refusal to comply with the Council's instructions. The Council had made efforts to engage with Mr Orwin to find an acceptable alternative to the email signature, but Mr Orwin refused to cooperate and stated that he would continue to use the signature, leaving the Council no alternative but to dismiss him.
Learning points for employers
This case highlights the importance of clear and effective communication between employers and employees when introducing new workplace policies, especially those related to inclusivity and diversity. Employers should ensure that policies are clearly explained and that employees understand both the intent and the optional nature of participation.
Moreover, employers should be prepared to handle non-compliance sensitively and constructively, seeking to resolve issues through engagement and understanding rather than immediate disciplinary action. By creating a culture of inclusivity and respect, employers can better navigate potential conflicts and ensure that workplace policies support broader organisational goals while respecting individual rights.
This case serves as an important reminder that whilst employees have the right to hold gender critical beliefs, there is a difference between when it can cross over to cause offense to others with different beliefs. This case is an example of when an employee did go too far and was deliberately provocative in his act, which resulting in him losing his claim.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.