In Mackereth v the Department for Work and Pensions and others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a Christian doctor’s lack of belief in transgenderism was protected under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA). However, requiring him to refer to transgender clients by their preferred pronoun in the workplace did not amount to direct or indirect discrimination or harassment.
Refusing To Use Transgender Preferred Pronouns
Dr Mackereth was a Christian doctor who applied for a position as a health and disabilities assessor on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. During his induction training, he explained that owing to his Christian beliefs, he would not use the preferred pronouns of transgender clients, as required by the respondents’ policies. Attempts were made to clarify and accommodate Dr Mackereth’s position and beliefs but the respondents concluded it was not possible and he subsequently left his employment and brought claims in an employment tribunal for direct and indirect discrimination and harassment against his former employer, relying on the protected characteristic of religion or belief under the EqA.
The Appeal
After the tribunal rejected his complaints, he appealed to the EAT. On appeal, however, the EAT held that the claimant’s lack of belief in transgenderism was protected under the EqA. The fact that his beliefs were ‘likely to cause offence’ did not automatically mean that they were excluded from protection. Nevertheless, the EAT went on to say that alleged acts of less favourable treatment could not be established in this case as the employer had tried to accommodate Dr Mackereth’s beliefs and he had not been suspended, interrogated about his beliefs or dismissed – he chose to leave employment. In addition, Dr Mackereth’s beliefs were not the reason for the respondents’ conduct; their actions were driven by a need to treat transgender clients with respect and without discrimination. As a result, his appeal failed.
It is worth noting that the claimant has stated his intention to take his case to the Court of Appeal and the Christian Legal Centre - who described the EAT’s decision as ‘muddled and confused’ - has stated that it will support him.
If you need support with a case of unfair dismissal, contact our Employment Law specialists today.
