It's increasingly common for employers to invite staff to add pronouns to their email signatures, to show support for and solidarity with trans and non-binary people. But in the context of an often-vitriolic public debate about trans rights and “gender critical” viewpoints, even this modest gesture towards inclusiveness can be a flashpoint. In a recent Tribunal case, an employee reacted to his employer's invitation for staff to add pronouns to their email signatures by announcing that he would add "(XY‐chromosome‐guy/adult‐human‐male)" to his signature, in what he admitted was an intentional provocation. Despite requests from his employer, he refused to remove it and was ultimately dismissed.
He brought claims for discrimination (on the basis of his “gender critical” views) and unfair dismissal, but both claims were rejected by the Employment Tribunal. Helpfully for employers, the Tribunal acknowledged that the employer was seeking to pursue a legitimate aim, particularly in light of its values and public sector equality duty. But the employer was criticised for the way it went about introducing its pronoun policy, which the Tribunal described as poorly-worded.
So what are the lessons here for employers?
First, it's preferable to give staff the option not to include pronouns if they don't wish to do so (as the employer did here). But, more importantly, employers should also be explicit about the purpose of such policies and give staff clear guidance about what is and what isn't acceptable. The employer's initial communication in this case suggested that employees had wide latitude, and may have encouraged the employee to take a deliberately confrontational stance.
A final thought is that the judgment demonstrates the complexity of this area of law. The Tribunal had to undertake a 10-stage analysis, including looking at European Court of Human Rights caselaw, to ascertain whether there had been direct discrimination. It's a real challenge for employers to apply this in a workplace context. The Court of Appeal is considering these issues in the appeal in Higgs v Farmor (see our previous update here) and we can only hope that it takes the opportunity to simplify this area.
Want to hear more from us? 
