Mackereth v The Department for Work and Pensions & Anor [2019] UKET 1304602/2018 (02 October 2019)

Mackereth v The Department for Work and Pensions & Anor [2019] UKET 1304602/2018 (02 October 2019)

The claimant was not subjected to direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, or harassment under the Equality Act 2010. The respondents' requirement to use service users' preferred pronouns and forms of address was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of ensuring respect and non-discrimination for transgender service users. The claimant's beliefs, insofar as they manifested in a refusal to comply with this requirement, were incompatible with the fundamental rights of others and not protected in this context. No less discriminatory alternatives were viable, and the claimant was not suspended or dismissed because of his beliefs but because he could not comply with the...

Citation
[2019] UKET 1304602/2018
Parties
Claimant: Dr David Mackereth; First Respondent: Department for Work and Pensions (DWP); Second Respondent: Advanced Personnel Management Group (UK) Ltd (APM)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
02 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Complaints dismissed
Legal Topics
Direct Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination, Harassment, Religion or Belief, Gender Reassignment, Protected Characteristics
Employment Law Equality Law Direct Discrimination Indirect Discrimination Harassment Religion or Belief Gender Reassignment Protected Characteristics

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr David Mackereth

Claimant

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

First Respondent

Advanced Personnel Management Group (UK) Ltd (APM)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was subjected to direct discrimination on grounds of religion or belief under s.13 Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was subjected to indirect discrimination on grounds of religion or belief under s.19 Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was subjected to harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not subjected to direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, or harassment under the Equality Act 2010. The respondents' requirement to use service users' preferred pronouns and forms of address was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of ensuring respect and non-discrimination for transgender service users. The claimant's beliefs, insofar as they manifested in a refusal to comply with this requirement, were incompatible with the fundamental rights of others and not protected in this context. No less discriminatory alternatives were viable, and the claimant was not suspended or dismissed because of his beliefs but because he could not comply with the...

Court Disposition

Complaints dismissed

Orders

  • All complaints of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and harassment under the Equality Act 2010 are dismissed.
  • Unless objections are received within 14 days, the provisional remedy hearing listed for 15 November 2019 is vacated.