In the case of Orwin v East Riding of Yorkshire Council, the Employment Tribunal examined whether the dismissal of Mr. Orwin, an ICT Project Officer, for using deliberately provocative pronouns in his email signature constituted discrimination. The Council had introduced a policy encouraging employees to add pronouns to their email signatures to promote inclusivity. Mr. Orwin opposed this policy, arguing it posed a safeguarding risk and, in protest, added "XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale" to his email signature. Despite multiple requests from management to remove the signature, Mr. Orwin refused, leading to his suspension and eventual dismissal for gross misconduct.
Tribunal decision
The Tribunal held that Mr. Orwin's email signature was a deliberately provocative act meant to mock gender self-identification rather than an expression of his own gender identity. Consequently, the Council's actions to dismiss him were in response to the inappropriate manifestation of his beliefs, rather than because he held gender-critical beliefs. The Tribunal found that the dismissal was not direct discrimination, as the Council had acted proportionately in response to Mr. Orwin's refusal to comply with reasonable management instructions.
Legal framework
The Tribunal's decision was grounded in the Equality Act 2010, which protects individuals from discrimination based on religion or belief. However, the manifestation of such beliefs is not necessarily protected if it infringes on the rights and freedoms of others. The Tribunal referenced the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in Forstater v CGD Europe, which held that gender-critical beliefs could amount to a philosophical belief under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. Nonetheless, the manifestation of those beliefs can be restricted to protect the rights of others.
Proportionality and public sector equality duty
The Tribunal also considered the Council's public sector equality duty and its desire to provide an inclusive service for all community members. Given Mr. Orwin's public-facing role, his email signature posed a risk of reputational damage to the Council. The Tribunal noted that the Council had made efforts to engage with Mr. Orwin to find an acceptable alternative to the email signature, but his refusal left the Council with no alternative but to dismiss him. The Tribunal concluded that the Council's response was proportionate and justified.
Learning points for employers
This case underscores the importance of clear and effective communication between employers and employees when introducing new workplace policies, especially those related to inclusivity and diversity. Employers should ensure that policies are clearly explained and that employees understand both the intent and the optional nature of participation. Handling non-compliance sensitively and constructively, seeking to resolve issues through engagement and understanding rather than immediate disciplinary action, is crucial. By fostering a culture of inclusivity and respect, employers can better navigate potential conflicts and ensure that workplace policies support broader organisational goals while respecting individual rights.
Additional considerations
Employers should be aware of the complexities involved in balancing gender-critical and gender-affirmative beliefs in the workplace. Clear guidance on what is acceptable in terms of email signatures and other manifestations of beliefs is essential. The Tribunal's decision in this case highlights the need for well-thought-out policies and the importance of considering the context and potential impact on all employees and stakeholders.
This article was generated using HR Advisor, an AI tool designed to assist HR professionals with employment law. If you find the content helpful, please explore HR Advisor and sign up for a free trial to see how it can benefit your HR practices.
