Social worker wins £55,000 after row about gender-fluid dog

Council bosses said the comments had been 'non-inclusive and transphobic'

Elizabeth Pitt was reported to managers at Cambridgeshire country council after she voiced "nasty opinions" about the dog during a video meeting with the council's LGBTQIA+ group in January last year.

A tribunal heard that Pitt had made the comments after a colleague said he identified his pet as "gender-fluid."

Pitt and another colleague were reported for commenting in a "really aggressive tone" about the dog owner's revelation, and voicing gender-critical viewers which were deemed to be "non-inclusive and transphobic,” the Times reports.

Evidence at the tribunal showed colleagues had taken issue with Pitt's "nasty opinions", resulting in the formal complaint. Pitt and her colleague were also criticised for their negative comments on "trans women participating in women’s sports and sharing women’s spaces."

As a result, Pitt was banned from contacting members of the group or attending their meetings. She subsequently sued the local authority for discrimination and harassment over her gender critical views.

In a written report, managers said Pitt had been “perceived to be non-inclusive and transphobic,” had "caused significant offence," and had been "particularly inappropriate and ill-judged."

Council bosses said that whilst her views on gender were a "philosophical belief," the manner in which she had expressed them was "aggressive and confrontational."

But the tribunal backed Pitt's claim, and awarded her more than £55,000 in damages, made up of £30,000 in loss of earnings and £22,000 compensation for injury to feelings. The council also were ruled to pay £8,000 in costs on top of the damages.

Pitt admitted she could be "direct" with her views, but that part of the point of the LGBTQIA+ group meetings was to discuss topics such as this.

She claimed bosses failed to explain why there was an issue with how she expressed her beliefs, and that the council's reaction amounted to harassment and direct discrimination.

Judge Paul Mitchell ruled the evidence showed that "at least part of the reason" for the council's conduct towards her was her "gender-critical beliefs."

The council was also recommended to change its staff training to include a section on “freedom of belief and speech in the workplace”.

A council spokesman said the authority aimed “to create a safe, inclusive and compassionate environment for people to work in and recognise this needs to be balanced with everyone being entitled to express their own views and beliefs”.

They added: “We will reflect carefully on this final outcome, as well as undertaking a review of our policies and procedures accordingly.”