Mr J Esses v The Metanoia Institute and Others: 2206164/2021 and 2206708/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 2024 |
| Date | 05 February 2024 |
| Published date | 18 October 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Religion or Belief Discrimination |
| Citation | 2206164/2021 and 2206708/2021 |
Case Numbers: 2206164/2021 & 2206708/2021
- 1 -
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondents
Mr J. Esses
v
(1) The Metanoia Institute
(2) United Kingdom Council for
Psychotherapy
(3) Pamela Gawler-Wright
Heard at: London Central On: 14, 15 and 16
June 2022
Before: Employment Judge B Beyzade
Representation
For the Claimant: Ms A Reindorf, Counsel
For the Respondents: (1) Ms C Goodman, Counsel (1st respondent)
(2) Mr T Brown, Counsel (2nd respondent)
(3) Ms R M White (3rd respondent)
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the tribunal is that:
1.1 The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claims against
the second respondent that were made pursuant to section 53 of the Equality
Act 2010 (section 54 of the Equality Act 2010 being the relevant interpretation
provisions);
Case Numbers: 2206164/2021 & 2206708/2021
- 2 -
1.2 the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaints brought against
the second respondent on the basis that it is a trade organisation for the
purposes of section 57(7)(c) of the Equality Act 2010;
1.3 the complaint for victimisation issued under claim number 2206708/2021
insofar as it was brought against the third respondent is struck out pursuant to
Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and
Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it has no
reasonable prospect of success. For the avoidance of doubt, the claim
brought under claim number 2206708/2021 against the second respondent
shall continue (parties are referred to the Tribunal’s directions below in
respect thereof);
1.4 The claimant’s claim issued under claim number 2206164/2021 to the extent
that this is made based on the claimant’s contention that UKCP is liable for
the termination of the claimant’s contract with the first respondent as a
principal of the first respondent under sections 109 and 110 of the Equality
Act 2010 stands struck out;
1.5 Except as set out above, the remainder of the second respondent’s
application dated 7 December 2021 for a strike out order or a deposit order in
respect of the claimant’s claims lodged under claim number 2206164/2021 is
dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
The First Claim
1. By a complaint dated 8 September 2021 (assigned claim number
2206164/2021) the claimant presented a complaint of direct discrimination,
harassment, and victimisation against the first and second respondent
(“the First Claim”).
Case Numbers: 2206164/2021 & 2206708/2021
- 3 -
2. The claimant relies on the protected characteristic of religion or belief (see
section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 [“EqA”]). Paragraph 11 of the First
Claim states:
11. The Claimant holds the following philosophical beliefs:
11. 1That sex is binary, immutable and biological and gender is a question of identity
based upon a variety of factors, including culture and socialisation. It is a collection of
attributes or traits typically associated with a particular sex. Although someone may
exhibit more masculine or feminine attributes or traits, it does not change their
biological sex. Gender identity and sex are independent of one another and separate.
A person’s gender identity may overlap or correspond with their sex; or alternatively
the two characteristics may not overlap or correspond at all. Broadly, this may be
described as “the gender critical belief”.
11.2 That gender reassignment is not de facto the appropriate treatment for all individuals
experiencing gender dysphoria and that there may be such individuals who ought not
to be treated in this manner immediately and/or merely by fact of their gender
dysphoria. Psychotherapists should explore by way of open-ended discussion the
context and possible causes of a person’s gender dysphoria, which may in some cases
lead to the person desisting from a course of potentially irreversible and potentia lly
damaging medical intervention such as puberty blockers, cross-sex ho rmones and sex-
reassignment surgery. This therapeutic approach amounts to necessary, beneficial
and responsible treatment. It should not be conflated with harmful conversion
therapy, which seeks to divert or de ny an individual from their sexual orientation or
gender identity, and it must not be criminalised. This may be described as “the talking
therapy belief”.
12. The claimant contends that the first respondent and the second
respondent are qualifications bodies which are defined at section
54 of the EqA. Alternatively, the claimant says that the second
respondent is a trade organisation within s.57 of the EqA.
13. His complaints include the summary termination of his contract
with the first respondent of the claimant’s participation in a
diploma programme through which he was training as a
psychotherapist (he also claims that the second respondent
instructed, caused, or induced the first respondent to terminate its
contract with him under s 111 EqA) and also termination of his
trainee membership with the second respondent in May 2021.
14. The First Claim is resisted by the first respondent and the second
respondent. The second respondent has raised jurisdictional
issues as to the standing of the Tribunal to hear these complaints
To continue reading
Request your trial