Mr K Lister v New College Swindon — 2024

The claimant, a lecturer at New College Swindon, held a gender-critical philosophical belief but accepted that he could treat transgender students with respect. Student A asked in September 2021 to be referred to by a different male name and pronouns. The tribunal found that the claimant did not comply consistently: he used the student's previous name, gestured rather than naming the student, made comments about transition and the NHS, and later posted material online about transgender issues. A student complaint in January 2022 led to a safeguarding and disciplinary process, a referral to the LADO, suspension on 28 February 2022, a disciplinary hearing in August 2022, dismissal on 9 September 2022 and an unsuccessful appeal on 2 December 2022.

On direct discrimination, the tribunal applied the burden of proof and manifestation cases it cited, including Igen v Wong, Page v NHS Trust Development Authority, Eweida and Higgs. It accepted that the claimant's comments and online posts were connected to his belief, but held that the respondent's actions were taken because of the conduct and the risk of harm or harassment to Student A, not because the claimant held a protected belief. The tribunal found that Student A had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, that the respondent was entitled to investigate the safeguarding concerns, and that the LADO referral and disciplinary process were justified in light of the admitted conduct. The direct discrimination complaints were dismissed.

On indirect discrimination, the tribunal treated clause 4.1 of the Gender Reassignment Policy as the relevant PCP. It found no evidence that people sharing the claimant's protected characteristic were put at a group disadvantage by the clause, and it did not accept that the policy caused his safeguarding concerns not to be advanced. If justification had been necessary, the tribunal said the policy pursued legitimate aims and the relevant parts were proportionate. On unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied Burchell and s.98(4) ERA 1996 and held that the respondent had a reasonable belief in misconduct, based on a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It rejected the s.100(1)(e) case because there was no evidence of serious and imminent danger and no dismissal because the claimant had taken protective steps. No award was made because all claims failed.