Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Choudhury,Mr C Edwards,Mrs MV McArthur |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 10 June 2021 |
© Copyright 2021
Appeal No. UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ROLLS BUILDING, 7 ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE, LONDON, EC4A 1NL
At the Tribunal
on 27 & 28 April 2021
Handed down on 10 June 2021
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY (PRESIDENT)
MR C EDWARDS
MRS M V MCARTHUR BA FCIPD
MAYA FORSTATER APPELLANT
(1) CGD EUROPE
(2) CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
(3) MASOOD AHMED RESPONDENTS
(1) INDEX ON CENSORSHIP
(2) EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION INTERVENORS
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant
BEN COOPER
One of Her Majesty’s Counsel
ANYA PALMER
Of Counsel
Instructed by:
Doyle Clayton Solicitors
One Crown Court
Cheapside
London
EC2V 5LR
For the Respondents
For the First Intervenor
For the Second Intervenor
JANE RUSSELL
Of Counsel
Instructed by:
Bates Wells & Braithwaite London
LLP
10 Queen Street Place
London
EC4R 1BE
AILEEN McCOLGAN
One of Her Majesty’s Counsel
KATHERINE TAUNTON
Of Counsel
Instructed by:
Index on Censorship
1 Rivington Place
London
EC2A 3BA
KARON MONAGHAN
One of Her Majesty’s Counsel
Instructed by:
Equality and Human Rights
Commission
Arndale House
The Arndale Centre
Manchester
M4 3AQ
UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ
SUMMARY
TOPIC NUMBER 26: RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
The Claimant holds gender-critical beliefs, which include the belief that sex is immutable and not
to be conflated with gender identity. She engaged in debates on social media about gender identity
issues, and in doing so made some remarks which some trans gender people found offensive and
“transphobic”. Some of her colleagues at work complained that they found her comments
offensive, and, following an investigation, her visiting fellowship was not renewed. The
Claimant complained that she was discriminated against because of her belief. There was a
preliminary hearing to determine whether the Claimant’s belief was a philosophical belief within
the meaning of s.10 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA). The Tribunal held that the belief, being
absolutist in nature and whereby the Claimant would “refer to a person by the sex she considers
appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or
offensive environment”, was one that was “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”.
Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the belief did not satisfy the fifth criterion in Grainger
plc v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360 (“Grainger V”). The Claimant appealed.
Held, allowing the appeal, that the Tribunal had erred in its application of Grainger V. A
philosophical belief would only be excluded for failing to satisfy Grainger V if it was the kind of
belief the expression of which would be akin to Nazism or totalitarianism and thereby liable to
be excluded from the protection of rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention
of Human Rights (ECHR) by virtue of Article 17 thereof. The Claimant’s gender-critical beliefs,
which were widely shared, and which did not seek to destroy the rights of trans persons, clearly
did not fall into that category. The Claimant’s belief, whilst offensive to some, and
To continue reading
Request your trial