Mr M Phillips (counsel) For the First v Respondent — 2018

The tribunal unanimously held that there was no contravention of Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010 and dismissed Dr Mackereth's complaints under ss.13, 19 and 26. It accepted that Christianity was a protected characteristic, but the case turned on the specific beliefs relied on in ET1/5 and on whether those beliefs could be manifested in the way Dr Mackereth said he required.

The tribunal found that Dr Mackereth was trained as a Health and Disabilities Assessor for DWP work on 29 May to 27 June 2018 and that, during training on 6 June 2018, Dr Ahmed explained that the DWP's policy was to address transgender service users by their preferred name and pronouns. When Dr Mackereth said he could not do that in good conscience, the matter was escalated through APM and DWP managers. The tribunal found that the subsequent meeting with Mr Owen on 13 June was an information-gathering meeting, not a disciplinary meeting, and that no pressure was applied to renounce his beliefs.

On the events of 14 June, the tribunal found that Dr Mackereth told Mrs Harrison he felt it would not be fair on service users for him to continue working while distracted and that he wanted to go home until the situation was resolved. It found that he was not suspended and that his departure was his own request. It also found that the later correspondence, including the 25 June email asking whether he would follow the agreed process or leave the contract, led to his ceasing to work as an HDA, but that this was not a dismissal by the respondents.

On the legal analysis, the tribunal applied the Grainger criteria to the belief issues and concluded that the beliefs relied on in ET1/5 fell foul of those criteria because, in the tribunal's view, they were incompatible with human dignity and conflicted with the fundamental rights of others. It also held that refusing to refer transgender service users by their birth sex, pronouns, titles or styles would amount to unlawful discrimination or harassment. The direct discrimination complaint failed because the tribunal found that any person who refused to use the service user's chosen pronouns, style or title would have been treated in the same way, so the treatment was not because of the protected beliefs.

The indirect discrimination complaint also failed on justification. The tribunal accepted that the DWP's policy of addressing transgender service users in their presented sex pursued legitimate aims, including treating service users with respect, complying with the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty, and avoiding discrimination and harassment. It held that the alternatives identified, including desk work, triage and referral to another assessor, were not workable in the circumstances and would themselves risk delay, offence, anxiety and potential legal and reputational harm. Because all claims were dismissed, the provisional remedy hearing was vacated and no award was made.