As a break from workplace investigations and before Covid’s threatened resurgence as an issue for employers, how about this new slice of “gay cake” case law around what should and should not happen when your religious beliefs clash with the requirements of your job?
In Mackereth –v- DWP & Another this week, the claimant was a man with both literally and metaphorically Old Testament beliefs, specifically around Genesis 1:27 and Deuteronomy 22:5, which he read as prohibiting transgenderism and cross-dressing respectively, and as imposing on him a personal duty not to encourage or facilitate the acceptance of gender “impersonation” (his word) in today’s society. Mackereth chose to make his last stand on the request by his employer that he use pronouns (Mr, Mrs, etc.) which he saw as inconsistent with the gender at birth of the people he dealt with. [For reasons unexplained, he had no such issue using the first names by which they preferred to be addressed, and so while unwilling to address a person born male as Miss, there seemed to be no difficulty with, for example, Vera.]
As a disability benefit health assessor, it was accepted that Mackereth might see only a handful of transgender applicants each year. However, it was the employer’s case that given the emotional and mental health burden often carried by transgender people seeking disability benefits, it was still appropriate to impose a requirement that the pronouns used by its staff should reflect...
By Andrew Chung Oct 9 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump asked the US Supreme Court on Friday to revive his dismissed lawsuit against his 2016 Democratic rival Hillary Clinton accusing her of cons...