Court cases/Judicial Reviews/ET/ETAs

[ArabellaScott]

A thread of court cases involving people with 'gender critical' beliefs. So they are all in one place. I'll try and add links to court judgements where I can find them.

I'll add cases as I have time but please feel free to add others and/or remind me of any I've missed!

1. Maria McLachlan, Tara Wolf. Assault by beating/battery.

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/04/27/trans-identified-male-tara-wolf-charged-assault-hyde-park-attack/

'Tara Wolf (also known as Tara Flik Wood), a trans-identified male, stood trial for striking 60-year-old Maria MacLachlan three times in Hyde Park on September 13th 2017, where women had gathered to attend a meeting called “We Need to Talk About Gender” at a yet-to-be-disclosed location. Wolf was found guilty of “assault by beating,” more commonly known as “battery.”'

My post has been hidden - but it’s just a copy of text from the Andreas Mueller crowd justice site to say the case against him has been settled and the complaint withdrawn. The ET re Elspeth is still going ahead in June. The cases were linked as they were both related to SEEN in the Civil Service (I think).

Thanks.

I am Andreas Mueller. I work for an arm’s length body to a government department. I am being sued for gender critical statements I made at work, and for my involvement in co-founding SEEN, a gender critical staff network.
Summary
A colleague is taking me, a government department and the Arms-Length Body (ALB) where I work to an Employment Tribunal. I am being sued for expressing gender critical beliefs at work. The claimant is also trying to shut down the gender critical SEEN (Sex Equality and Equity Network) staff network that I co-chair.

'Update:

The case has been settled.

After nearly two years, my employment tribunal has reached a conclusion. The claimant — granted anonymity and referred to as PQ, a trans-identifying male — requested to settle. I believe this is because PQ and his lawyers were finally compelled to accept what I have known throughout: the case against me was unwinnable. I had never harassed him as he claimed. The case was settled on the 20th March 2026, and the claimant has informed the employment tribunal of the withdrawal of his claim.

Why this case was brought

I was pursued because I expressed my protected belief that sex is binary, immutable, and sometimes matters — even in the workplace — and because I helped found the Sex Equality and Equity Network (SEEN) in Defra Group. The case began in April 2024. It was unjust, from start to finish.

As part of the settlement, PQ requested confidentiality and a non-disparagement clause. I refused both conditions outright. Accepting them would have prevented me from speaking freely and accurately about what I have been through — silencing me in the very way this case sought to silence me from the start. That would have compounded the injustice, not resolved it. You donated so that I could fight. Part of that fight is being able to tell the truth about it. Click here to download a redacted copy of the settlement agreement agreement (the COT3).

Throughout this process I received absolutely no support from my employer, my trade union, or my legal expenses insurance. The toll on my family has been real and I will not pretend otherwise. But now it’s over. This malicious attempt to ‘punish’ me for saying what most of us know has comprehensively failed, and that is a big relief.'

Paywalled article:

https://www.law360.com/articles/2465161/gender-critical-gov-t-staffer-settles-harassment-case

Throughout this process I received absolutely no support from my employer, my trade union, or my legal expenses insurance.

Same old story. Bloody useless unions!

https://sex-matters.org/case-briefings/faye-russell-caldicott-v-nhs-england/

Faye Caldicott v NHS England

Caldicott WIN.

'Tribunal finds the policy of permitting "trans women" to use female facilities was harassment in relation to sex & GC belief and its trans equality proceedure was harassment in relation to GC belief.'

The claimant "LS" claimed that NHS England indirectly discriminated against women, Muslim women and women with PTSD relating to male sexual violence because of their policy of permitting trans staff to use the facilities of their gender identity at their offices.

The Tribunal decided that the claimant’s complaint of indirect sex discrimination succeeded because the respondent failed to show that its policy was “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. - there is no express legal right for a trans person to use the single-sex facilities of their gender identity under the EqA or under Workplace Regs 1992; - the respondent’s aims (including its aim of respecting the gender identity of its staff) were legitimate. But there was no express consideration of the impact on female staff. - the respondent should have considered an alternative measure i.e. permitting trans staff to use gender neutral facilities. The Tribunal concluded that doing so would have had a lesser impact on its much larger number of female staff.

The claimant claimed that NHS England harassed her related to sex and GC belief by having a policy of allowing TW to use women’s single-sex facilities and because of the wording of the Procedure itself. NHS England accepted that the policy and wording had the effect of violating the claimant’s dignity or creating a hostile, intimidating, humiliating or degrading environment for her but said that it was not reasonable to have that effect on the claimant.

The Tribunal decided that it was reasonable for the policy to have the Harassment Effect on the claimant in relation to her sex and gender critical belief.'

https://x.com/MForstater/status/2054577625864015990

Oh, what excellent news! It's another brick in the wall of legal rulings, EDI fanatic employers must surely be starting to take notice by now?

Sean McGinty loses his unfair dismissal ET against BBC. He was sacked over tweets.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3p6p7eeylo

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/bbc-host-social-media-mcginty/#:~:text=Sean%20McGinty%20had%20worked%20for,messages%20expressing%20anti%2Dtrans%20views.

DE and FG v West Lothian Council.

A Scottish primary school broke the law by failing to provide single-sex toilets, court finds.

https://t.co/SU3t1WIC6a

...
'women are more likely to have experienced sex based harassment and sex based violence than men, and that generality gives rise to a rational reaction in females so they may have fearful, defensive and precautionary traits, even in what men might regard as normal situations.'
...
'The parents of a girl at the school (the petitioners) are concerned about the main toilet areas not being single sex. The court’s decision is that the toilet provision complained about breaches the requirements of the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 (the “1967 Regulations”) and is indirectly discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”).'
...
'modern hygiene standards indicate that toileting includes not only relieving oneself but also, ordinarily, washing hands afterwards. Girls may have particular needs that boys do not have in that regard, because their anatomy means that there is a need for more frequent wiping, and consequent transfer of substances such as urine to hands, even if inadvertent. Further, the physiology of females means that in the ordinary course they will at some point start to menstruate, and when menstruating there may be transfers of blood to hands when using the toilet. (Although this case concerns a primary school, under the 1967 Regulations schools are required to have provision for disposal of sanitary towels if there are pupils beyond primary 4). Girls are therefore at a particular disadvantage having to use unisex toilet areas such as those in the main toilet areas. That is so even where there are individual cubicles with flushing toilets in them marked for girls only, because after relieving themselves they have to walk through a communal area where children may be waiting, with the particular hygiene issues relating to their hands already mentioned, and wash them at wash basins shared by boys.'
...
'despite the Council’s submission that young boys do not subject girls to sex based harassment, the type of factors mentioned in Hutchinson and R(C) suggest that girls may experience particular vulnerability using a unisex area for intimate activities, such as changing, or toileting including washing their hands afterwards'

https://www.irishnews.com/news/uk/council-acted-unlawfully-in-school-toilet-provision-judge-rules-KLKLDB736JPBDOJIBJYB2J3HEY/

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/girl-in-pain-after-refusing-37127579

News articles, the second from a month ago.

'A council acted unlawfully in its provision of toilets at a primary school where the main toilets are in mixed-sex areas, a judge has ruled.
The judge also found that a pupil suffered indirect discrimination as a result of the toilet provision, though a claim of harassment was rejected.'

"The tribunal heard McGinty made numerous posts on X, including about transgender issues and Hamas, which were deemed to have breached BBC social media and editorial policy guidelines."

I must have missed this one at the time. Does anyone know what the contents of the tweets were? I note in one article it says ‘anti-trans’ views but doesn’t elucidate.

The judgment is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a195bd4050971fbebf3bc20/Mr_S_McGinty_v_British_Broadcasting_Corporation_-6016586_2024-_Reserved.pdf

Another article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rd1z50mjo

"despite the Council’s submission that young boys do not subject girls to sex based harassment"

Bollocks. Have they actually met any children?

I was eight when two boys no older than eleven "prively caughte me by the queynte" in a primary school changing room. I am glad that the panel recognised that girls are vulnerable to even young boys.

Similar.

And far more prevalent than the actual sexual attacks is generalised sex-based bullying of the 'Yucky girls'/'girls can't....' variety (and the 'stinky boys' sort).

Couldn’t find any detail on the tweets in the linked articles, but the Telegraph has published some today:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/c8d63b0920369a2f

Thanks.

'The BBC also found that other posts containing “anti-trans sentiments” were a breach of impartiality, the tribunal’s* *judgment read.
In posts on X, Mr McGinty had referred to “trans nonsense”, said the public sector had been “captured by gender madness” and described the term non-binary as “particularly stupid in its usage”.'

Its OK for the Beeb to push trans propaganda, lie about sex, lie that Semanya and Khelif are women etc etc and that's neutral and balance. How very Orwellian.