Lesbian social employee wins £55K in discrimination tribunal

A lesbian social worker has won £55,000 after a council disciplined her for voicing ‘transphobic’ views when a male colleague said his dog was ‘gender fluid’.

Elizabeth Pitt faced complaints after voicing ‘gender critical’ views on a Zoom call for the LGBTQIA+ group at her local authority Cambridgeshire County Council.

It came after one member said he identified his dachshund dog as ‘gender fluid’ and put a dress on it to prompt debate about gender, an employment tribunal heard.

Ms Pitt and another lesbian colleague were then reported for their ‘really aggressive tone’ with views that were deemed to be ‘non-inclusive and transphobic’. 

One person was said to be left ‘shaking in disbelief’ and another complaining it gave them ‘anxiety dreams’.

But when Ms Pitt was disciplined by bosses and banned from contacting members of the group or attending meetings, she took them to a tribunal for harassment.

Now, Ms Pitt has been awarded over £55,000 and won £8,000 in legal costs after a judge said records showed she suffered because of her ‘gender-critical beliefs’.

The tribunal in Cambridge also recommended that the council change its staff training to include a section on ‘freedom of belief and speech in the workplace’.

The hearing was told that during a Zoom meeting in January 2023, one of the attendees said he ‘identified his dachshund dog as gender-fluid’ and put a dress on the dog to ‘prompt debate about gender’.

Ms Pitt responded – alongside a lesbian colleague of hers – by voicing ‘gender critical views’ which others on the call found ‘offensive’.

One said she had a ‘really aggressive tone’ and that he found it ‘quite inappropriate’ that Ms Pitt and her colleague had been commenting on ‘transwomen participating in women’s sports and sharing women’s spaces’.

The panel heard it was ‘clear’ from documentation from attendees that opinions voiced by Ms Pitt were seen as problematic.

They took issue with her ‘nasty opinions’ and the council wrote to Ms Pitt in April 2023 to tell her that a formal concern had been raised, relating to ‘some views’ she had expressed during the call which were ‘perceived to be of an inappropriate and offensive nature’.

At a meeting with bosses, she denied having been aggressive but accepted she could be ‘quite direct’.

When asked if she thought that was the ‘appropriate place’ to discuss her views, she asked ‘what the group was for, if it was not for that type of discussion?’

Following the meeting, a report said comments by Ms Pitt had been ‘perceived to be non-inclusive and transphobic’, had ’caused significant offence’ and been ‘particularly inappropriate and ill-judged’.

She was told her comments had a ‘detrimental impact on the mental health and well-being of the complainants’.

Ms Pitt was then sent a written management instruction, in which she was told to act in a way which ‘ensured her personal views and beliefs did not manifest themselves in comments or actions in the workplace that might discriminate against others on grounds of a protected characteristic’.

She was asked not to contact any members of the LBBTQIA+ group or attend their events, and that the order was an informal stage of the council’s disciplinary procedure.

This prompted Ms Pitt to raise a grievance and in response to her outcome, wrote: ‘There is nothing in the grievance outcome that explains why it has been decided that there was an issue with the way my beliefs were expressed, so how has the conclusion on the expression of my beliefs been reached?’

She did not receive an answer to her question.

Ms Pitt argued the council’s reaction to her expression of gender critical beliefs ‘amounted to harassment/direct discrimination’.

The council accepted her gender critical beliefs amounted to a ‘philosophical belief’, but said it was the ‘manner in which’ she and her colleague ‘chose to promote their views’ that had been ‘aggressive and confrontational’ by talking over people.

It was heard that Ms Pitt’s crowdfunded legal team wrote to the council’s solicitors in July 2024, informing them they would be applying for costs.

The letter stated documents left ‘no sensible room for doubt’ that Ms Pitt’s views had caused – ‘in whole or part’ – the council’s impugned conduct which amounted to discrimination or harassment ‘because of her gender critical belief’.

It concluded by inviting the council to ‘admit liability for harassment because of [her] protected belief’, and agreeing to ‘a truncated hearing to deal with remedies only’.

The panel heard on the first day of the final hearing in July 2024, the council ‘admitted liability’ for harassment relating to Ms Pitt’s gender critical beliefs, as well as her sexual orientation.

Employment Judge Paul Michell said: ‘We fully accept that on the face of the documents, [the council] had (at least) reasonable prospects of persuading the tribunal that [Ms Pitt] was treated as set out above in substantial part because of the perceived insensitivity of her raising her views in a forthright manner and in that forum; her being seen as being deliberately provocative (perhaps largely by association, because of her colleague’s behaviour).

‘However, we agree with [Ms Pitt’s lawyer] that the contemporaneous documents unambiguously show that at least part of the reason for [Cambridgeshire County Council] impugned conduct was its response to the manifestation of her gender-critical beliefs.’

He, therefore, awarded Ms Pitt £8,000 in legal costs.

She was also awarded nearly £30,000 in loss of earnings and £22,000 compensation for injury to feelings which, with interest added, totalled £55,910.

He added: ‘[We] recommend that [Cambridgeshire County Council] mandatory essential e-learning be revised to include a section on freedom of belief and speech in the workplace and that it be made available to all of [its] employees within the next six months.

‘The tribunal recommends that [Ms Pitt] be sent a copy of [this], and confirmation of the date that it was made available to the employees.’

Following the outcome, Ms Pitt told supporters that she was delighted that the council accepted full liability and agreed to pay her compensation.

Ms Pitt, who raised £51,529 for her legal case on a crowdfunding page from 2,121 donations, said: ‘It would be understandable if, when it came to it, the council’s witnesses may have felt a bit queasy about the questions they were likely to face, and for clarity the above is the tip of the iceberg.

‘Let’s hope that other employers will start to learn that it’s a bad idea to try to stop lesbians asserting their boundaries and silence staff who know that sex is real, and sometimes matters.

‘I thank everybody for the support you have given to me – I have lots of thank yous still to do; there have been 2121 donations to the fund – and this win belongs to all of us.’

A council spokesman said: ‘We strive to create a safe, inclusive and compassionate environment for people to work in and recognise this needs to be balanced with everyone being entitled to express their own views and beliefs.

‘We will reflect carefully on this final outcome, as well as undertaking a review of our policies and procedures accordingly.’