Gender critical man loses tribunal

[tedlassoforprimeminister]

According to the daily mail online
'a man lost his job when he refused to use 'acceptable' pronouns such as he/him and instead used the words 'XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale' to the end of his emails. The ICT project officer was suspended and eventually sacked by East Riding of Yorkshire Council in 2022 when he refused to change the sign-off.
In May he took the authority to a tribunal, saying they had discriminated against his beliefs and he had been unfairly dismissed as if he had remained silent he would have 'facilitated the steady creep of evil'.
Although the panel dismissed his case and found he was not discriminated against, it did accept his gender-critical beliefs amounted to a protected 'philosophical belief within the meaning of section 10 of the Equality Act 2010'.
However he has been forced to pay the council £12,000 after an employment judge ruled his tribunal claim was 'vexatious'

Have women who have made this protest also been told they are vexatious? He is clearly gender critical, and his belief has been accepted, but he still has to pay costs. How does this compare with women who have gone to tribunal?

This is the decision (not of the costs decision, that doesn't seem to be out yet). He picked a stupid fight. The email from the Chief Exec was very clearly not a requirement and he could have just declined. If you keep a look on this page then the costs decision should appear in a few weeks and will explain the tribunal reasoning behind the finding of vexatious behaviour. It's not easy for a respondent to get costs! https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-j-orwin-v-east-riding-of-yorkshire-council-6000146-slash-2022

As many other cases have shown, there's a distinction between the belief you hold and your actions and where the line is between manifesting your belief and simply behaving like an arsehole. It's tempting to point out that in this area the arseholes are men (Page, this one) but that's probably unfair.

An employment tribunal can order costs where the claimant has been "a)a party (or that party's representative) has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings (or part) or the way that the proceedings (or part) have been conducted" (I am assuming it's this from your use of word vexatious - am not searching out the Mail article). So it's not that he lost, it's the proceedings. Something like this, I suspect it's not that he brought the proceedings so much (because where the line is between belief and manifesting and conduct isn't straightforward) but that he was a nightmare claimant who racked up costs for the council in the way he conducted the proceedings. But the costs decision will explain.

I think edging into GF territory is not the best basis for an ET claim.

He can hold any beliefs he wants, but if he can't follow rules and do the job he was paid to do then firing him was the correct decision.

Sorry, but what's GF? Having read the judgement I'm assuming Goady Fucker?

You're right.

Can't blame the employer here at all.

If I received an email from a govt employee that said XY chromosome etc I'd raise my eyebrows in much the same way as I would at one that had ze/zim.