Maya lost - can it be true?

[OhHolyJesus]

I'm not saying it is true - Twitter isn't known for being wedded to truth...anyone able to shed light? I thought the verdict wasn't due for a while...

twitter.com/boysvswomen/status/1207379435684585474

they had a justifiable concern that there was a risk of harassment by Maya in the future against trans people having a GRC since Maya had expressed "hardline" views.

Do we normally allow companies to sack people for "pre-crimes"?

Not for the past few decades but it's coming back into fashion. As ever you can count on gender identity ideology to reintroduce regressive stuff that we thought was in the bin of history.

It would not be capable of misconduct. It could potentially be unfair dismissal of A. But so long as the employer has an honestly held belief that one employee (A) is likely in the future to harass another employee (B) or that A will otherwise cause the employer to be in breach of contract with B (by allowing B to be placed in the same working environment as (A)) then the employer will have strong arguments that the dismissal was fair for ‘some other substantial reason’. This would be possible under the guise of a personality clash. Also a pressure group may complain to the employer and also create another substantial reason being pressure from a third party- also a known fair reason for dismissal of an employee.

Hmmm, possibly might get it as a potentially fair reason under SOSR but not sure I think any tribunal in the land would find it reasonable to dismiss someone who had not committed any misconduct because of the chance they might do so in future.

Also a pressure group may complain to the employer and also create another substantial reason being pressure from a third party- also a known fair reason for dismissal of an employee.

My blood ran cold reading that. Some on this board work for universities in non-academic roles (so no "academic freedom of speech" policies would protect them) and would be very vulnerable to being sacked on the basis of the students pressuring the uni.

Welcome to MN FWR Aston and merry christmas!

As a proper lawyer, what is your opinion of Tayler's reasoning for not applying Grainger to genderist ideology as a belief and only applying it to Maya's disbelief (paras 58 and 92)?

Also a pressure group may complain to the employer and also create another substantial reason being pressure from a third party- also a known fair reason for dismissal of an employee.

Thinking more on this, it creates a situation where A can harass B via B's employer and B's employer can lawfully collude in that harassment by dismissing B. That's just dire. What happened to the principle of "do not negotiate with terrorists"?

Bd67th
The employer faced with this pressure would need to tread carefully if they intend to dismiss. It's a complex situation because you have 2 issues 1) whether the dismissal was fair and separately from that 2) whether the dismissal was discriminatory on the ground of a protected characteristic such as belief.

If there was a threatened boycott of the employers products for example and the employer honestly believed this might happen without dismissal then it might be considered reasonable to dismiss and possibly also justification for indirect discrimination. An employee's strongest argument may be for direct discrimination. However this might not succeed either if the employer can show it was the expression of beliefs rather than on the ground of the belief itself (the former is not a protected characteristic)

Where does it say anywhere that she was actually dismissed? That has not been established. Nor has it been established there was any breach of contract.

The judgement is solely about whether her belief is a philosophical belief protected by the Equalities Act.

She wasn't dismissed but they didn't renew her contract.

Everard for the purpose of employment law failure to renew a contract also counts as a dismissal. It doesn’t have to be a ‘firing’.

I think that Maya might not have had the qualifying length of contract to show this was an unfair dismissal. She would need 2 years qualifying service. Therefore she needed to frame her claim as discrimination on the basis of a belief

The judgement says consultancy contracts since 2015.

I don't think Maya was claiming unfair dismissal, which only applies to employees who have had a minimum of two years employment. It may be that Maya wouldn't have met either or both of these criteria.

Her case was that by not renewing her contract CGD were discriminating against her, you don't need to be an employee to claim discrimination and there is no minimum length of service.

There's no dispute between the parties that her contract was not renewed, and as there is no claim of unfait dismissal, discussions about whether or not it was technically a "dismissal" aren't really relevant.

Had the judge found that her beliefs meet the Grainger criteria there would have been a further hearing to decide whether or not she had suffered unlawful discrimination on the ground of her beliefs. As it was the legal process ended because of the judge's decision cut off that further argument.

Ah right that makes sense, Thanks for clarifying.

Fieldofgreycorn
Agreed. No dismissal or breach of contract raised in the Maya case. It was a preliminary hearing on the sole issue of whether the gender critical belief was a philosophical belief attracting protection under the Equality Act.
I think the reason for the discussion expanding from the precise facts of the Maya case is because people want to know what impact the decision might have on other employment scenarios.

One can also wonder if the decision had gone in her favour what the impact might be on other employment scenarios and the implications of that.

One can also wonder if the decision had gone in her favour what the impact might be on other employment scenarios and the implications of that.

What do you see those implications being?

That it could set a precedent for not treating a transitioned person at work in the way the GRA intended or in line with the EHRC guidance. I.e. it could legitimise misgendering etc. in the workplace.

Just to be clear: I’m not saying that’s what Maya said she would do. But it would open the door for others to do so if they wished.

Just to be clear: I’m not saying that’s what Maya said she would do. But it would open the door for others to do so if they wished.

Stop trying to imply that the issue in Maya's case had anything to do with her behaviour at work. Or, by extension, the behaviour of anyone at work.

Maya's argument was that her belief in biological reality matters for the creation of good public policy. It had nothing to do with how one should or should not relate to transgender persons in the workplace.

If Maya had won the implication would be that both a belief in biological reality and a belief in genderist ideology were protected. We could then get on with the task of balancing rights without anyone being silenced.

Also, just to be clear: EHRC guidance belongs in the bin. The stat code is so clearly 'ahead of the law' it's crying out for legal challenge.

Oh Lang. I’m not.

it could legitimise misgendering etc. in the workplace

I hope it would. ‘Gendering’ is harmful. I don’t want to be put in any gender box in the workplace and wouldn’t do the same to anyone else. I expect to be treated on my ability to do my job and paid accordingly not asked to make the coffee and paid less because I am a woman.

Pronouns refer to sex and always have done.

I don’t think it would legitimise misgendering etc. Harassment is clearly wrong but there was no suggestion that Maya would have treated any co-workers any worse due to transgender status.

That’s absolutely true Reality. There was no suggestion that Maya would have treated any co-workers any worse due to transgender status.