Tag: Diversity

Categories
Beliefs Case Law Diversity Employment Law Employment Tribunal Equality Act 2010 Freedom of Speech Lousha Reynolds

Balancing Beliefs: Why the EAT Lister v New College Swindon judgement matters

Royal Courts of Justice, London

The UK employment law community is awaiting a pivotal decision from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT): the judgement in Lister v New College Swindon.

Following a preliminary hearing in May 2025, this appeal is one of the most significant belief discrimination cases of the year. For employers, particularly those in the education and public sectors, the outcome will define the practical boundaries between an employee’s right to hold gender-critical beliefs and an employer’s duty to protect service users from harassment.

The Background: Where we left off

The original Employment Tribunal (ET) decision in March 2024 was a comprehensive victory for the employer. Kevin Lister, a maths lecturer, was dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing to use the preferred name and pronouns of a transitioning student (“Student A”).

The ET found that while Mr Lister’s gender-critical beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010 (following the precedent in Forstater), his manifestation of those beliefs was “objectionable.” Key factors included:

  • The power imbalance: Mr Lister was a teacher in a position of authority over a minor. 
  • The gender-neutral approach: Rather than using the student’s name, he gestured toward them, which the student found demeaning. 
  • Refusal to comply: During the disciplinary process, he maintained he would not change his behaviour, leaving the college with little choice but to dismiss him to prevent ongoing harm.

Why the appeal is critical

The EAT is now considering whether the first tribunal correctly applied the “boundary” between holding a belief and manifesting it. Mr Lister’s appeal argues that:

  1. The college’s gender reassignment policy was inherently discriminatory by requiring him to act against his conscience.
  2. The tribunal failed to properly balance his Article 9 (Freedom of Thought) and Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

For legal practitioners, the central question is whether an employer can mandate the use of preferred pronouns in a workplace or educational setting without it amounting to “compelled speech” or indirect discrimination.

What employers should watch for

This judgement will likely provide much-needed clarity on the “proportionality” test. We expect the EAT to address:

Key Issue Employer Consideration 
Manifestation vs. Belief At what point does expressing a belief become “manifestly objectionable” conduct? 
Policy Enforcement Can an employer fairly dismiss an employee solely for refusing to follow a “preferred pronoun” policy? 
Safeguarding Does the duty of care toward students/vulnerable groups trump an employee’s right to manifest their beliefs? 

Practical steps for HR and management

While we await the final word from the EAT, businesses should not remain static. We recommend:

  • Reviewing equality policies: Ensure your policies on gender reassignment and religion/belief are balanced. They should emphasise respect and dignity for all without appearing to indoctrinate or silence protected beliefs.
  • Training on clashing rights: Managers need to understand that two people can have competing protected characteristics. The goal is to manage the impact of the behaviour, not the belief itself.
  • Focus on proportionality: If an employee refuses to comply with a policy, consider whether a less severe sanction than dismissal is possible, unless, as in Lister’s case, the employee makes it clear they will never change their conduct.

Looking ahead

The Lister appeal arrives at a time of heightened sensitivity, following the Government’s long-awaited (and still debated) guidance on gender questioning children in schools. The EAT’s decision will serve as a lighthouse for how these complex, often emotive issues are handled in the tribunal system for years to come.

Do your current Equality and Diversity policies align with the latest EAT guidance?

CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Disability Discrimination Law Diversity Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010

The widening of disability discrimination

View of the British Houses of Parliament from the river Thames, where the Employment Rights Bill is being debated

In 2010, when the Equality Act was updated, the concept of associative discrimination was enshrined within the legislation as regards direct discrimination. This followed the famous Coleman case, where the protection had been extended to the employee not because of her disability but because she was caring for her disabled child.

Since then, in 2014, a Bulgarian case in the European Court of Justice, Chez Razpredelenie extended the concept of associative discrimination to indirect discrimination.

Reminder: direct discrimination is the idea that because of somebody’s protected characteristic they have been treated in a particular way. That direct discrimination can occur where the reason for less favourable treatment is the protected characteristic of someone with whom the victim associates.

For indirect discrimination to be established under Section 19 of the Equality Act, the Employer is applying some kind of provision criterion or practice to everybody but the Claimant argues that this puts them and those with whom they share a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage. The employer has the opportunity to defend the case showing it to be a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim. Traditionally, this requires the Claimant to have the protected characteristic in question and to suffer the disadvantage personally.

In the Chez case the European Court of Justice held that the protection afforded by the Race Directive which sits behind our law applied irrespective of the ethnic origin of the person who suffered the disadvantage ie: associative indirect discrimination was possible. One of its reasons for doing so was the overarching aim of eliminating all discrimination on ethnic or racial grounds. Thus they were determining that it was sufficient for a person to show that they had suffered a particular advantage alongside a disadvantaged group.

In a recent UK decision of Follows v Nationwide Building Society, Mrs Follows was employed on a Homeworker Contract for around 7 years and the primary reason that she worked from home was to care for her disabled mother. She attended the office 2-3 days a week. She had high ratings in appraisals throughout her employment, including conducting excellent supervision of her team.

Nationwide decided to reduce the number of managers from 12 to 8 and to determine that everyone would have to be office based. The reason that they gave was a greater need for supervision due to a change in the nature of the work and feedback from junior staff who were dissatisfied with the level of supervision provided to them.

Mrs Fellows was put at risk of redundancy and the employer experienced more volunteers than the required reduction in headcount. Mrs Follows didn’t volunteer and wanted to stay in employment but continued to argue that she should retain her existing working from home arrangements. Nationwide it appears approached some of the volunteers for redundancy to request that they stay on but yet dismissed Mrs Follows by reason of redundancy.

Another male colleague, who was not disabled and who was not a carer but also worked from home received the same treatment and was also dismissed.

Mrs Follows brought claims of unfair dismissal, direct and indirect associative discrimination on the grounds of disability, indirect sex discrimination and indirect age discrimination.

The direct discrimination, the disability discrimination claim and the indirect age discrimination claims failed. She was successful in her claim for unfair dismissal, indirect associative discrimination on the grounds of her mother’s disability and indirect sex discrimination. Here we are going to focus on the disability arguments.

The reason why the direct discrimination claim failed was that the correct comparator was her male colleague who wasn’t disabled or a carer – because he received the same treatment as her and was also dismissed, she couldn’t get this claim off the ground. However, the claim of indirect disability discrimination by association was upheld. The Tribunal noted the background with the Chez case and the Tribunal were prepared to read our domestic legislation in the light of the Directive that sits behind it. The requirement to no longer work at home put Mrs Follows at a substantial disadvantage because of her association with her mother’s disability as her principal carer. Nationwide knew of the circumstances and of the disadvantage that Mrs Follows would suffer by its changing requirements.

The legitimate aim relied on by Nationwide was the need to provide more effective onsite supervision and the change in their lending work: given the evidence Mrs Follows’ supervisions were good, the Tribunal felt supervision had to be onsite was itself discriminatory and it couldn’t therefore amount to a legitimate aim. Even if it had been prepared to find that they were legitimate aims it felt that selecting Mrs Follows for redundancy and dismissing her was not proportionate as a means of achieving that legitimate aim, it wasn’t based on any actual evidence or rational judgment, rather it was based on Nationwide’s objective view of dissatisfaction expressed from junior staff together with managers view that the new arrangement would be better. They had also failed to take into account Mrs Follows’ view or her history of excellent supervisory work. It seems that the Tribunal were mindful that Mrs Follows had been attending the office for 3 days a week already and was prepared to continue doing so. It clearly influenced their attitude towards Nationwide being unreasonable.

This case widens the picture of our discrimination law and will be particularly relevant now that we are looking at how we work from home or in the office and hybrid working moving forward.

Whilst the case is at first instance, there is always the opportunity for the Employment Appeal Tribunal to provide more guidance on this subject and employers need to be careful when arguing somebody must return to the office/can’t do their job from home. They must have concrete evidence to rely on to justify their demands.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Age Discrimination Anna Denton-Jones Disability Diversity Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Harassment HR Training

The requirement for diversity training

Royal Courts of Justice, London

As if everyone in HR and business is not under enough pressure at the moment, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in a case Allay (UK) Ltd v Gehlen has confirmed that it regards training provided 2 years ago on equality and diversity “stale” and ineffective. This was in the context of a racial harassment case. You will be familiar with the idea that in order for an employer to escape liability, if there, is to say that they as employer took all reasonable steps to prevent employees from committing the particular discriminatory act.

It has long been the case that employers present the Tribunal with the fact that the employee protagonist in any harassment case has undergone training and that they have policies of not tolerating such acts of harassment.

If you had asked me to guess how long it took training to become stale and ineffective, I might have said 4-5 years. It is really interesting that the EAT wasn’t going to allow the employer to rely on having given somebody training 2 years ago and suggests that employers are going to need to make some sort of refresher training an annual event. This will of course go for all forms of harassment, so every protected characteristic, not just that of race.

In this particular case, the EAT found that the need for a refresher on a regular basis was amplified by remarks made in the case and the failure of other colleagues to react to the harassment they had witnessed or that had been complained about, and showed the training wasn’t in anyone’s minds. The fact that the protagonist felt that what they had said was just banter was further evidence that the training given had faded from memory and the managers didn’t know what to do when they observed harassment or it was reported to them, suggested that training had also faded from their memories. The particular employer had actually provided further training to the protagonist after the incident so that proved that they also thought further training was necessary, thus the employer couldn’t escape liability.

Having seen a real shift as a result of the MeToo movement, attitudes towards sexual harassment in the workplace and a further big shift as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement means that there is a huge spotlight at the moment over conduct in the workplace and a real sea change in what is expected to be tolerated. It could be that as the generations move into the workforce who are more likely to refuse to accept old norms or tolerate what they see as inappropriate, we see a sea change but for now the employer needs to be driving the change and reinforcing the message whenever it can.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law