header-logo header-logo

Gender critical cases: sex matters

177107
Complaints about discrimination in relation to any protected characteristic should lead to robust investigations, not heresy hunts, say Maya Forstater & Anya Palmer

Writing in NLJ recently, Oscar Davies, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers, said that the law was ‘tying itself in knots over gender critical cases’ (see ‘Gender critical cases: making bad law?’, NLJ, 26 April 2024). In fact, since 2021, when the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that gender critical beliefs were ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’, tribunals have drawn a series of straight lines between discriminatory conduct and employer liability.

The first organisation to be found liable for gender critical discrimination was Garden Court itself. In July 2022, an employment tribunal ruled that Garden Court had discriminated against one of its barristers, Allison Bailey, in its response to people complaining about her view that people cannot change their biological sex. The tribunal found that Garden Court had discriminated against Bailey, and victimised her, in publicly stating

To access this full article please fill the form below.
All fields are mandatory unless marked as 'Optional'.
If you already a subscriber to New Law Journal, please login here

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll