Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe
The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that Forstater's beliefs were protected, meeting the final requirement in Grainger plc v Nicholson, specifically that they were "worthy of respect in a democratic society".
[7][8] At a subsequent full merits hearing, the Employment Tribunal upheld Forstater's case by concluding that she had suffered direct discrimination on the basis of her gender critical beliefs.
[9] The judgement for remedies was handed down in June 2023, with Forstater awarded compensation of £91,500 for loss of earnings, injury to feelings and aggravated damages, with an additional £14,900 added as interest.
[12][13][14] Forstater has had academic research on corporate responsibility and illicit financial flows published by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization and the Chr.
[3] The question before the hearing was whether Forstater's view that "sex is biological, binary, immutable and important" was covered by the protected characteristic "religion and belief" under section 10 of the Equality Act.
[4] She also described Pippa Bunce, who identifies as "gender fluid" and as a husband and father, and won an award for Executive Businesswoman of the Year, as "a man in a dress".
[4][5] Judge Tayler found that Forstater's "absolutist" beliefs satisfied the first four parts of Grainger plc v Nicholson (2009) with some reservations about its "cogency and coherence".
[29] Louise Rea, a solicitor with Bates Wells which advised CGD stated that Judge Tayler had "observed that the claimant was not entitled to ignore the legal rights of a person who has transitioned from male to female or vice versa" and that "it is the fact that her belief necessarily involves violating the dignity of others which means it is not protected under the Equality Act.
"[30] In January 2021, international human rights lawyer Robert Wintemute criticised the judgement, in an article published in Industrial Law Journal.
"[37] The EHRC stated that their position was that Forstater's views were "a philosophical belief which is protected under the Equality Act",[38] and were represented at the appeal by Karon Monaghan QC.
The Law Society Gazette also reported that following the ruling, Amanda Glassman, executive vice-president of CGD, said: "The decision is disappointing and surprising because we believe [the tribunal judge] got it right when he found this type of offensive speech causes harm to trans people, and therefore could not be protected under the Equality Act.
"[42] In Scottish Legal News Louise Usher said: 'As a result of this decision, employees with gender critical views are entitled to protection from discrimination and harassment.
It is also important to bear in mind that, as a consequence of the recent Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover decision, those identifying as non-binary are also entitled to protection.
"[43] In an article in the Law Society Gazette in July 2021, Tess Barrett, a solicitor, commented on the appeal judgment, which she said "is not a permission for those who hold gender critical beliefs to misgender with impunity and nor is it a removal of existing transgender rights".
[45] The decision of the tribunal hearing the full merits of the case, delivered in July 2022, was that Forstater had been subjected to direct discrimination and also victimisation because of her gender-critical beliefs.
[46][47] The judgement for remedies was handed down in June 2023, with Forstater awarded compensation of £91,500 for loss of earnings, injury to feelings and aggravated damages, with an additional £14,900 added as interest.
