Claimant v East Riding of Yorkshire Council

The claimant's gender-critical belief was held to be a philosophical belief under s.10 EqA 2010. However, the treatment complained of (instructions to remove email footer, suspension, disciplinary, dismissal) was not because of the belief itself, but because of the claimant's use of a deliberately provocative email footer ('XYChromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale') intended to protest the respondent's pronoun policy. The tribunal found no sufficiently close causal nexus between the belief and the email footer — it was not a legitimate manifestation under Article 9 ECHR. The respondent's interference was justified under Article 10 ECHR as proportionate and prescribed by law (s.149 EqA public sector equality duty). Treatment was not because of the protected belief.

The reason for dismissal was conduct (failure to follow reasonable management instructions), which is a potentially fair reason under ERA 1996 s.98. The tribunal applied the Burchell test: there was a reasonable investigation by an impartial investigating officer (Mr Curtis); the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed serious insubordination; there were reasonable grounds for that belief; and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The claimant repeatedly refused to remove the email footer despite multiple instructions and refused to discuss moderation. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally and substantively fair.

The claimant did commit gross misconduct by repeatedly refusing to follow a reasonable management instruction. The instruction was reasonable because the email footer was mocking, derisory, and divisive — contrary to the respondent's public sector equality duty. The claimant's repeated assertion that he would not comply constituted a repudiatory breach of an implied term to follow reasonable management instructions, which goes to the heart of the employment relationship. The respondent was entitled to dismiss summarily without notice.