Employment Tribunal finds NB does not meet PC of GR

I haven't RTFT but will do so as this seems like a useful judgement. Although I assume it won't be a precedent unless it goes to appeal and there is no change to the decision.

It's frustrating how there is lots of mention of "correct" pronouns and "mistakes" with pronouns. Who is the arbiter of what is correct? It's going to entirely depend on whether the person who used the pronouns to describe Haech believes that everyone has a gender identity or doesn't.

This bit of the claim made me laugh out loud:

On 31 January 2024, Yvette Dunn failed to acknowledge the Claimant in a corridor interaction, responding with a brief “hi” and turning away. [Incident I]

As sad as it is to feel like you've been slighted in such a low level way, what kind of a person raises it an employment tribunal?! And what was Haech expecting Yvette to do?! A curtsey? A hug? Hold a deep and meaningful conversation? What if Yvette was busy and was just getting on with her day?

Thank goodness common sense seems to be creeping in to court rooms. Finally.

"Unsafe" seems to be the mot du jour for the precious TRA's these days and it always gives me a dry chuckle.

Robin Moira White successfully arguing that non-binary is a load of old twaddle has made my Friday. We'll make a TERF of you yet Robin!

The claimant did not alert Ms Dunn to their concern and the conversation was amicable. Ms Dunn left to go to her own room. Shortly afterwards the claimant emailed Ms Dunn to express their concerns and told Ms Dunn that she had misgendered them. The claimant commented that they understood it was entirely without malice and was likely to be a mistake. They explained that being misgendered was “like a gong going off in their head” and that was why they couldn’t mention it in the conversation. The claimant then proceeded to put paper across all but a few inches of the glass panel between the claimant’s and Ms Dunn’s room. Although the claimant says they did this because they felt unsafe, we are unclear what the claimant means by this.

I have started reading the judgement and I already feel so sorry for the IT staff. Anyone with any workplace experience knows that the IT Service Desk deal with hundreds of tickets per day and can't be expected to remember each case where a user's name or honorific hasn't been updated in Active Directory yet.

Exactly and I'm also thinking of people who don't have English as a first language too, it must be doubly difficult to have to navigate this nonsense.

🍿 I hope so, to set some nice clear precedent.

Some tribunal claims are taken on on a no win no fee basis, but this particular case doesn't seem like a likely candidate for that.

The best thing about this is that if other ETs decide the same way is that it’s not going to be illegal to refuse to employ these self absorbed twats

Thank you, that's what I meant, don't have the right terminology.

Private businesses have to avoid these sorts of employees if they have any sense. The drain on profit is obvious to all.

Unfortunately this means they all end up in the public sector, where they are welcomed as symbols of inclusion and kindness for the organisation. Then the tax payer ends up paying for the inevitable catastrophe when every other colleague is pushed to their absolute limits by the daily batshittery and so the disciplinaries begin.

yes it is

better use of preliminary hearings and deposit orders are needed to eliminate claims and free up capacity

I guess it's a human right to bring a case if you think you have one and can fund it, but I agree, this one was flimsier than the paper Haech stuck on the glass panel. There has to be a way for a panel to say "Come on, you're having a laugh here" without taking up days of court time and thousands of pounds of public money? Surely?

(Oh and I realised, reading back, that I assumed RMW was acting for the claimant. It's very interesting that that's not the case.)

I lean more toward the Scottish “ch.”

First tier tribunals don't set precedent. Should Ms Lockwood choose to appeal, the appeal verdict would set precedent.

i can’t think of an instance of an ET throwing out a discrimination claim for having no reasonable prospects of success, it’s incredibly rare even when hopeless.

What I mean is, the taxpayer is funding the tribunal, the court costs, etc. Which will be huge.

In this case, we are funding the tribunal running costs, plus the NHS' costs to defend (which will be in the thousands).

There is an early screening to check whether a claimant has a case or not: in many instances, this seems not to work. For example, I think if someone tries to take someone to tribunal based on things like 'they only said 'hi' to me in the corridor', or 'their apology was insufficient when they accidentally misgendered me', this should not be allowed to go to tribunal.

Exactly this. She is clearly profoundly unwell and seems to be a drain on her employer (paid for by taxpayers)

I was wondering about that. This demonstrates that at least some lawyers believe that non-binary identities are included under the PC of gender reassignment.