New in the Industrial Law Journal "Belief vs. Action in Ladele, Ngole and Forstater" by Professor Robert Wintemute, Kings College London

https://t.co/jNYucKvKKa

Wintemute asks "Did the Employment Tribunal correctly distinguish the claimant’s belief from hypothetical (speculative, future) harmful action that might involve
discrimination against, or harassment of, a transgender co-worker or customer? "
He considers the case of Ladele - a registrar whose religious belief meant she would not conduct same sex weddings - her belief could not be accommodated, because she had chosen to act on it in a way that caused harm to others.
And Ngole, a student social worker who won his case " I never advocated any hate...towards people who are in same sex relationships. ... I never stated that people in same sex relationships should be treated differently.."
Wintemute notes "Ms Forstater was not dismissed because of her treatment of any transgender person, such as a co-worker or a customer of her employer..but because of her co-workers’ intolerance of her unfashionable (to them) belief that, in some situations, sex matters"
"The Employment Tribunal noted her statements (on Twitter and to the Tribunal) that her belief would generally not be translated into action, especially in her workplace"
"Despite her stating that she would generally be polite and kind, the Employment Tribunal was concerned that Ms Forstater might harass a transgender person in the workplace, even though there was no evidence that she had ever done so"
The Tribunal merged hypothetical harmful action into M Forstater’s belief despite the absence of any evidence that she had failed to respect the dignity in the past, and despite the evidence that she would generally respect the dignity in the course of her employment
The Tribunal then described this hypothetical action (‘refer[ring] to a person by the sex she considered appropriate’) as a ‘core component of her belief’, which made her belief ‘not worthy of respect in a democratic society’
Wintemute concludes "If the ET had correctly made the essential distinction between belief & action, without merging hypothetical harmful action into Ms Forstater’s belief, it would have concluded that her belief is ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’."
"Whether one agrees or disagrees w Ms Forstater’s belief in two immutable biological sexes, her belief can hardly be put at the same level as Holocaust denial or incitement to violence. "
The ET erred in law by distorting the 5th Grainger criterion, w the effect of sweeping into the ‘not worthy of respect’ category any belief that some persons might find ‘offensive’ & therefore consider harassment, if (hypothetically) it were expressed directly in the workplace.

More from Legal

1/ On Jan 2 we introduced Proud Boy Billy Knutson to the world. Billy said he was going to DC to "literally go Antifa hunting."

Well, Proud Boy Billy Knutson stormed the U.S. capitol with his fellow terrorists and participated in a failed coup:
https://t.co/Ctb7vThYhs


2/ Terrorist Proud Boy Billy Knutson placing himself at the scene of the failed coup in DC to overthrow democracy:


3/ From terrorist Proud Boy Billy Knutson's Parler in his own words:

PS: We see Texas Charter Plane 5 Jenna Ryan made the big time at the failed U.S. coup in DC


4/ FAIR USE claim: shows context in tweets

Terrorist Proud Boy Billy Knutson's Parler video where you can hear him screaming, "Stand Back and Stand By Motherf*ckers!" while standing on the US capitol steps. Speaker says they'll be back on Inauguration Day.


5/ Terrorist Proud Boy Billy Knutson already lost his Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, & Twitter before heading to DC

However @Spotify & @YouTube continue to platform Billy Knutson, aka Playboy The Beast, a terrorist that participated in the U.S. failed

You May Also Like