: Ms Watt Mr Cardownie R D Adams v , Barrister Instructed by Messrs Gunnercooke Solicitors Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre — 2024

The tribunal found that the claimant held protected gender-critical or sex realist beliefs, and that those beliefs were known within the respondent organisation. The dispute arose in a women-only rape crisis service after a service user asked whether a worker, AB, was a man or a woman. The claimant sought guidance on how to answer, proposed wording that identified AB as female at birth and non-binary, and later exchanged further emails with management and AB about the issue.

The tribunal held that the respondents unlawfully discriminated against the claimant because of her beliefs. It found that the CEO's emails of 22 June 2022, which said the claimant had humiliated a colleague, stated that transphobia existed in the organisation, and said AB would have no further contact with her, created a hostile environment related to the claimant's protected belief. It also found that the later disciplinary investigation, the decision to widen it, the investigation report, the disciplinary hearing, the grievance process, the grievance appeal, and the failure to apologise or reassure her were all related to her beliefs and amounted to harassment. In the alternative, the tribunal held that the same treatment was direct discrimination and indirect discrimination, and that any restriction was not justified.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that the investigation and disciplinary process was deeply flawed and that the claimant was treated as if her beliefs were transphobic. It noted the unexplained reclassification of one allegation from gross misconduct to misconduct, the use of policies not previously raised, the decision to stall the disciplinary outcome pending grievance processes, and the refusal to provide the claimant with the reassurance she asked for that no evidence of transphobia had been found. The tribunal held that these matters amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, that the claimant was entitled to wait for the processes to conclude, and that she resigned in response when it became clear the respondents would not change their position. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing.