Search

How can we help?

Icon

Using preferred pronouns for transgender individuals

In the case of Mackereth v The Department for Work and Pensions and another, the Claimant was a doctor who refused to use transgender individuals’ preferred pronouns and titles as he claimed it went against his Christian beliefs.  This was notwithstanding the fact that his employer’s gender reassignment policy stated that employees “should always address the customer in their presented sex” and that the customer should be “referred to in their presented gender at all times”.

When he refused, the Claimant was told that he could not work directly with customers and was subsequently dismissed. He was told that misgendering customers could be considered as harassment under the Equality Act. The Claimant issued a number of claims in the Employment Tribunal including that he had been discriminated against because of his Christian beliefs.  His claims were unsuccessful.

This was notwithstanding the fact that his employer’s gender reassignment policy stated that employees “should always address the customer in their presented sex” and that the customer should be “referred to in their presented gender at all times”.

The Tribunal held that refusing to refer to a transgender person by their preferred pronoun and title would be in breach of the Equality Act and potentially the Gender Recognition Act. The Tribunal panel unanimously concluded that a “lack of belief in, and conscientious objection to, transgenderism is incompatible with human dignity and conflicts with the fundamental rights of others”.

This case emphasises the importance of providing clear guidance and training on equality and diversity in the workplace and the conduct that could contravene the Equality Act.

About this article

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 19 May 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Thinking of exiting your business? Part 2

In the second instalment of our three-part series, join Stuart Mullins from Clarkslegal and Nicky Goringe Larkin from Succession Planning as they discuss the complexities surrounding business financing, accounting practices, and valuation strategies, along with key insights into private equity.

Pub
  • 16 May 2025
  • Employment

London Seminar – Understanding the Employment Rights Bill: Legal changes and what they mean for HR

We are pleased to invite you to an in-person seminar at our London office on Tuesday 24th June, hosted by our Employment Law team. Join Monica Atwal, Managing Partner; Katie Glendinning, Partner; and Amanda Glover, Associate, as they unpack the legal implications of the new Employment Rights Bill and what it means for your organisation.

Pub
  • 16 May 2025
  • Employment

Reading Seminar – Understanding the Employment Rights Bill: Legal changes and what they mean for HR

We are pleased to invite you to an in-person seminar at our Reading office Tuesday 17th June hosted by our Employment Law team. Join Monica Atwal, Managing Partner, Katie Glendinning, Partner and Amanda Glover, Associate, will unpack the legal implications of the new Employment Rights Bill and what it means for your organisation.

art
  • 15 May 2025
  • Immigration

The 2025 Immigration White Paper: A Turning Point in UK Immigration Policy

On 12 May 2025, the UK Government unveiled its White Paper titled “Restoring Control Over the Immigration System”, outlining the most substantial proposed changes to immigration law since the post-Brexit overhaul.

Pub
  • 15 May 2025
  • Employment

TUPE Podcast Series – Information and Consultation Obligations

In this ninth episode of our TUPE Podcast Series, Katie Glendinning, a Partner in the employment team, will examine the information and consultation obligations under TUPE.

art
  • 15 May 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Ashley v HMRC – The High Court clarifies the scope of Data Subject Access Requests

DSARs are very rarely the subject of litigation, and they are even rarer in the High Court, so the case of Ashley v HMRC is a valuable decision for both data subjects and data controllers.