Another headline that would have made absolutely no sense a few years back - Social worker wins £55,000 after row about gender-fluid dachshund. Not that it makes much sense now.
Local authority bosses must pay a lesbian social worker more than £63,000 after she was disciplined for having “nasty opinions” about a colleague’s “gender-fluid” dog.
Elizabeth Pitt was reported to managers at Cambridgeshire county council for making allegedly transphobic remarks during a video meeting with the council’s “LGBTQIA+ group” last year.
An employment tribunal heard that Pitt made the comments after a colleague said he identified his dachshund dog as “gender-fluid” and that he had put a dress on the pet to prompt debate. Pitt and another lesbian colleague were reported for commenting on the revelation in a “really aggressive tone”, in which they voiced views that were deemed to be “non-inclusive and transphobic”.
Perhaps "what a load of fucking bollocks"? Something on those lines, I'd guess. Something entirely appropriate and reasonable.
Council bosses banned Pitt from contacting members of the group or attending their meetings. In response, the social worker sued the local authority for discrimination and harassment over her so-called gender critical views.
The tribunal backed Pitt’s claim and awarded the social worker more than £55,000 in damages and £8,000 costs. The judge also recommended that the council change its staff training to include a section on “freedom of belief and speech in the workplace”..
Pitt and her colleague were also criticised for having commented negatively on “trans women participating in women’s sports and sharing women’s spaces”..
Evidence submitted to the tribunal showed that colleagues had taken issue with Pitt’s “nasty opinions” and that a formal complaint had been made. At a meeting with council managers, Pitt denied having been aggressive but accepted she could be “direct”. She said the purpose of the group was to discuss that type of subject.
Managers produced a written report that described Pitt as having been “perceived to be non-inclusive and transphobic”. It was also found by the internal meeting that the social worker had “caused significant offence” and been “particularly inappropriate and ill-judged”.
Pitt was told that her comments had a “detrimental impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the complainants”. She was banned from contacting any of the LGBTQIA+ group or attend its events.
It was, in other words, a witch-hunt.
In his ruling, the judge, Paul Michell, said the tribunal agreed with Pitt’s lawyer that the evidence “unambiguously” showed that “at least part of the reason” for the council’s conduct towards her was her “gender-critical beliefs”. Pitt was awarded nearly £30,000 in loss of earnings and £22,000 compensation for injury to feelings, with interest added.
Michell recommended that council bosses include a section on freedom of belief and speech in the workplace in its mandatory training for staff within the next six months.
Comments