Mackereth v DWP [2022] ICR 1609
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the decision that the claimant, a doctor who refused to address transgender individuals by their chosen gender based on his Christian beliefs, had not been discriminated against. The claimant's belief and lack of belief were recognized as protected characteristics, but this did not result in unlawful treatment by the respondents.
Principles Derived:
For a belief to qualify as a “religious or philosophical belief” under section 10(2) of the Equality Act 2010, it must meet certain threshold criteria.
Even minority beliefs warrant protection under the Act, especially if they might be offensive to others.
However, there's a distinction between having beliefs and how one chooses to manifest them. If the manifestation infringes upon the rights of others, it might not be protected.
Facts and Application of the Law: The claimant was a doctor tasked with conducting health assessments for disability benefits. Citing Christian beliefs, he argued against the company’s policy of addressing transgender individuals according to their chosen gender. His complaints encompassed discrimination due to religion or belief. The employment tribunal initially dismissed his claims, finding that, while his beliefs were genuine, they did not satisfy the threshold to be considered discriminatory. The tribunal highlighted the need for respectful treatment of all service users.
Upon appeal, the EAT re-evaluated these beliefs, referencing cases like Grainger plc v Nicholson and Forstater v CGD Europe. It was determined that some of the doctor's beliefs did indeed warrant protection under the Equality Act 2010. However, his specific manifestations of these beliefs (in this case, refusing to address individuals by their chosen gender) were not protected, as they impinged upon the rights of others. The tribunal's findings on direct discrimination, harassment, and indirect discrimination were not overturned. The respondents had valid reasons to ensure all service users were treated respectfully, and the tribunal found the doctor's actions were not aligned with these reasons. The case emphasized the balance between individual beliefs and the rights and respect of others in a democratic society.
