Ms N Cunningham, Counsel Mr W Young, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025

The claimant, a Detective Constable who held gender-critical beliefs protected under the Equality Act, complained about the Metropolitan Police Service's Trans Day of Visibility event on 31 March 2023 and the way her subsequent complaint was handled. The tribunal found that the event was organised by the LGBT+ staff support association, with Christopher Moore acting in his capacity as Trans Lead, and that it was widely advertised, voluntary, and not part of the claimant's duties or working time. It also found that the external speaker Eva Echo expressed strong views critical of gender-critical people, and that the claimant was upset by the talk and by the adverse reaction when Posie Parker's name was mentioned.

On harassment, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was subjectively distressed and that the conduct complained of was unwanted. However, it held that the booking of Eva Echo and the invitation to attend were not conduct related to the claimant's protected belief, because holders of gender-critical beliefs were not in the organisers' minds when the event was arranged and the event was not directed at them. For the speech itself and the audience reaction, the tribunal applied s26 Equality Act 2010 and took account of the circumstances, including the event's purpose, the claimant's voluntary attendance, her prior interest in the subject, and Article 10 freedom of expression considerations as discussed in Higgs v Farmor's School. It concluded that, objectively, the speech and reaction did not amount to unlawful harassment, so the harassment claim was dismissed.

On direct discrimination, the tribunal applied the burden of proof under s136 Equality Act 2010 and the guidance in Igen v Wong and Madarassy v Nomura. It found that there was enough evidence to shift the burden, including an accepted degree of limited understanding within the respondent at the time about gender-critical belief, but the respondent discharged that burden. The tribunal accepted the contemporaneous explanations given by the DPS, the grievance team, and ACI Lockeyear: the claimant was complaining about an external speaker rather than an officer or member of staff, she did not want to complain against any individual officer, and the decisions taken were driven by the scope of the processes she invoked rather than by hostility to her belief. It therefore found that the complaint-handling and grievance decisions were not less favourable treatment because of religion or belief, and dismissed the direct discrimination claim. No monetary award was made.