Christian teacher ‘fairly sacked’ over refusal to affirm child’s gender

A CHRISTIAN primary school teacher who accessed confidential safeguarding files of a transgender pupil has lost an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal and religious discrimination.

The teacher, referred to as “A”, was informed in summer 2021 that a child born female – referred to as child X – would be joining her class. The school, run by Nottinghamshire county council, instructed her to use the child’s chosen male name and pronouns as requested by the parents.

In a letter to the head teacher during the summer break, the teacher said: “I am concerned that I am required to give ‘affirmative care’ to somebody who may regret it later.”

The head teacher replied: “You are entitled to hold your own personal beliefs ... However, as those beliefs if acted on could be a direct breach of GDPR and an act of direct discrimination, you must not act on them.”

The school said the pupil was moved to another class “to safeguard him from any potential harm”.

The tribunal heard that the teacher was told she must use the name and pronouns the family requested. The teacher objected and was suspended in September 2021 but reinstated the following month after meetings in which the school reiterated its expectations. The teacher’s representative wrote to the school, saying: “It would go against her conscience, informed by her Christian faith, to affirm a young child in their gender dysphoria.”

Over the academic year, the teacher repeatedly accessed the child’s safeguarding reports on the school’s cloudbased safeguarding solution (CPOMS) system and transcribed them on to her personal computer and a memory stick.

The tribunal ruled that “she was fully aware that her use of CPOMS in this manner was unauthorised”.

The teacher’s claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, religious discrimination and harassment related to religion or belief were all rejected.

Employment Judge Peter Mctigue said in the ruling on Friday that the teacher’s belief that the school’s approach was incorrect was “unreasonable” because she was “not in possession of all relevant information”.

He added: “We also conclude that the restricted reporting order should remain in place indefinitely. In short, the right for X to live a life in their chosen gender identity for the rest of their life prevails.”