@FemaleAndLearning
Interesting that he's considering legal action on sex discrimination grounds. I mean, he got the job in the first place and he wasn't sacked in order to give it to a woman - the role was scrapped. And in any case I thought he resigned? So perhaps constructive dismissal? But it was a public outcry about him being a man, not internal shenanigans, which made his job untenable - his employers and the panel who appointed him backed him publicly. If he was sacked, or felt he had no option but to resign because of the public reaction, it's tricky for him to argue that a woman would have been treated differently and the employers wouldn't have caved to public opinion, because there wouldn't have been public ridicule in that case - or at least only to the extent that people questioned the need for the role. I am very obviously not a lawyer, but a claim of victimisation or whichever ground covers "my-employers-exposed-me-to-public-ridicule" seems more appropriate to me than sex discrimination. Even there, although he might say that his employers should have foreseen the ridicule that would ensue if a man was appointed, arguably so should he have!
I do hope he continues with it, though. Could be fun and interesting court action.