Claimant v New College Swindon

The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for conduct (gross misconduct) after a reasonable investigation. The respondent held a genuine belief on reasonable grounds after reasonable investigation. Dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses available to a reasonable employer given the claimant's admitted discrimination and harassment of a student, his lack of contrition, and his indication he would not modify his behaviour.

Under s.100(1)(e) the claimant alleged dismissal for health and safety reasons relating to Student A's risk from cross-sex hormones. The tribunal found no evidence Student A was taking or considering such drugs, so no 'serious and imminent danger' existed. The respondent discharged the burden to show dismissal was for misconduct, not for the claimant's alleged protective steps.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's gender-critical belief was protected but found none of the alleged discriminatory acts (failure to investigate safeguarding concerns, LADO referral, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal) were because of his belief or its manifestation. The respondent was justified in investigating and restricting objectionable manifestations that caused potential harassment and discrimination of a transgender student. Where manifestation was the reason, the respondent's actions were proportionate and justified under the Higgs balancing test.

The PCP was clause 4.1 of the Gender Reassignment Policy. The tribunal found no evidence that people sharing the claimant's belief were put at a disadvantage by the policy. The policy did not proactively encourage gender reassignment, it celebrated diversity and sought to prevent discrimination. The claimant's safeguarding concerns were not rejected because of the policy but on their merits. In any event, the policy pursued legitimate aims (protection under s.7 Equality Act) and was proportionate.