Professor’s Claims For Discrimination And Unfair Dismissal Against The Open University Succeed

The tribunal found that Joanna Phoenix was employed as a Professor by The Open University from 1 August 2016 until 2 December 2021. The tribunal stated, "The claim arises out of the Claimant's stated gender critical beliefs." The tribunal found that the claimant's gender critical beliefs were not publicly known until she signed an open letter on 16 October 2018.

The tribunal heard that there was hostility toward gender critical beliefs from a section within HERC. The tribunal found that Dr Downes used the term transphobic as an insult in respect of gender critical views. The tribunal also found that Dr Downes had asked Dr Drake to take punitive measures against the claimant for signing a letter in the Sunday Times.

According to the tribunal's findings, Professor Westmarland told the claimant that having her in the department was like having a racist uncle at the Christmas dinner table. The tribunal also found that the creation of an Open Letter was a co-ordinated activity. This letter was circulated to pressure the university to disaffiliate the OU Gender Critical Research Network (GCRN).

The tribunal found that the claimant was interviewed on the Savage Minds podcast by Julian Vigo on 21 May 2021. Following the launch of the GCRN on 16 June 2021, the tribunal heard that the claimant reported receiving death threats on 18 June 2021.

This judgment decides liability: whether the claims succeed. It does not decide compensation. The tribunal found that the complaints of direct discrimination because of the claimant's gender critical beliefs under issues 2(c) and 2(d) were well founded. The tribunal also found that the complaints of harassment related to those beliefs under issues 2(a), 2(e), 2(g), 2(h), 2(i), 2(j), 2(k), 2(l), 2(m), 2(n), 2(o), 2(p), and 2(r) were well founded.

The tribunal found the claimant's claims for constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were successful. The tribunal also found that the claims for post-employment victimisation and post-employment harassment under issue 2(k) were successful. Additionally, the tribunal found the post-employment victimisation claim in respect of issue 2(s) was well founded.

Not all claims were successful. The tribunal found that the claim for indirect discrimination was withdrawn. The tribunal also found that the claims for direct discrimination or harassment under issue 2(b) and issues 2(f), 2(q), and 2(s) failed. Finally, the tribunal found that the post-employment discrimination claim under issue 2(s) failed.

This case shows how employment law can protect workers who hold specific beliefs. It demonstrates that employees may be protected from being treated poorly or being forced to resign because of their views.

The outcome highlights that all workers, regardless of their professional level, are entitled to legal protections in the workplace. It shows that the law can address issues such as harassment and victimisation.

Anyone with a problem at work can get free, impartial advice from Acas.

• Acas: The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service: a free, impartial public body that advises on problems at work and helps employers and workers settle disputes.
• Claimant: The person who brings the claim, usually the worker or former worker.
• Constructive dismissal: When an employee resigns because the employer seriously broke their contract, the law can treat the resignation as a dismissal.
• Direct discrimination: Treating someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic, such as their age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation.
• Harassment: Unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, or of a sexual nature, that violates someone's dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
• Indirect discrimination: A rule or practice that applies to everyone but puts people with a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage, and that the employer cannot justify.
• Liability: Whether the employer is legally responsible: in other words, whether the claim succeeds.
• Respondent: The employer, or other person or organisation, the claim is made against.
• Unfair dismissal: Being dismissed without a fair reason, or in an unfair way. Most employees need to have worked for a minimum period to claim it.
• Victimisation: Treating someone badly because they complained about discrimination, or helped someone else who did.
• Well-founded: The tribunal's phrase for a claim that succeeds. "Not well-founded" means it fails.
• Wrongful dismissal: Dismissal in breach of contract, usually without the notice, or notice pay, the employee was owed.

Case numbers: 3322700/2021, 3323841/2021
Claimant: Joanna Phoenix
Respondent: The Open University
Tribunal: Employment Tribunal, Watford (Employment Judge Young)
Decision date: 22 January 2024

Read the full decision on GOV.UK

Topics: breach of contract, religion or belief discrimination, sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, gender critical beliefs, discrimination

This report explains a published tribunal decision in plain English. It is general information, not legal advice.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.