This case was a didlaw case. One of those rare occasions when a case makes it all the way to the Tribunal. Well, this one sort of did, as in the parties got to the Tribunal for the first day of the hearing, by which time Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) had conceded liability, early that morning, and agreed to pay Ms Pitt her full schedule of loss.
Ms Pitt pursued harassment claims against CCC related to her gender critical beliefs, that sex is real and immutable. She had also brought claims of harassment related to her sexual orientation. Ms Pitt is a lesbian and a strong advocate for women. Ms Pitt had been a member of CCC’s internal LGBTQIA+ network and, during a peer support group meeting on 19 January 2023, she had met with some colleagues in the network where gender identity and sex based rights were discussed.
There was a debate about differing views, the use of pronouns in email signatures, and other such issues. The debate was lively, but in Ms Pitt’s mind, inoffensive and a difference of opinion between colleagues. So much so that one of her colleagues attending the meeting followed up with her afterwards. Some 4 months later, 5 attendees at this internal meeting lodged a formal complaint against Ms Pitt, asserting that during the meeting on 19 January 2023 she had been aggressive, hostile and voiced transphobic views. The complaint led to an internal investigation which resulted in Ms Pitt receiving a Management Instruction in respect of her conduct, asking that she re-consider CCC’s inclusion policies. In addition, she was suspended for 12 months from the internal LGBTQIA+ network. As a lesbian woman she found this particularly draconian.
Ms Pitt thereafter raised a grievance on the grounds of harassment and subsequently went on sick leave. As an experienced social worker she was dumbfounded at the actions of CCC and that she was being ostracised in the workplace for holding gender critical views. CCC had tried to assert that her views were not the problem, but rather the way she articulated them (manifestation). This, despite being CCC’s pleaded defence, did not correlate with the documents disclosed. It was clear that it was Ms Pitt’s views that were the issue, irrespective of how they were manifested.
After 10 months of litigation and stress for Ms Pitt, CCC conceded on the morning of the final hearing. The parties reached agreement on recommendations with CCC agreeing to revise it’s e-learning module with the assistance of a barrister. In response to CCC’s conduct Ms Pitt, supported by both her barrister, Naomi Cunningham of Outer Temple and Elizabeth McGlone of didlaw, made an open application for her legal costs. This application is yet to be determined.
This case is unusual in that it is rare for a respondent to concede so late in the day as it comes with costs risks (as evidenced here). Ms Pitt was ready to give her evidence and her opportunity to have her case heard in open court was taken away at the very last minute. In any event, this was an excellent outcome and another example of a case where the central issue has been both the holding and manifestation of gender critical views.
You can read the press comment in The Telegraph here.
This blog was written by Elizabeth McGlone, Partner at didlaw.
