In the case of Maya Forstater v Center for Global Development tax expert Maya Forstater did not have her contract renewed in March 2019 after writing tweets saying people could not change their biological sex.
She was found to have experienced discrimination while working for the Centre for Global Development (CGD).
In September 2018, Ms Forstater shared a series of tweets including concerns that expanding the definition of a woman would ‘undermine women’s rights and protection for vulnerable women and girls’.
She also tweeted: ‘I think that male people are not women. I don’t think being a woman/female is a matter of identity or womanly feelings. It is biology.’
While a tribunal judge decided in 2019 that Ms Forstater’s views were ‘not worthy of respect in a democratic society’, a 2021 appeal court judge decided in a landmark ruling that ‘gender-critical’ views were protected under the Equality Act.
An employment judge then found the think-tank’s decision not to offer Ms Forstater an employment contract nor renew her unpaid visiting fellowship role in March 2019 was direct discrimination related to her ‘gender-critical’ beliefs.
Ms Forstater, who has since founded the campaign group Sex Matters, said: ‘This final judgment provides me with some measure of closure and vindication, as it requires that CGD compensate me for my loss of income and injury to feelings.’
A spokesman for the think-tank said: ‘CGD has and will continue to strive to maintain a workplace that is welcoming, safe, and inclusive to all.
‘The resolution of this case will allow us once again to focus exclusively on our mission: reducing global poverty and inequality through economic research that drives better policy and practice.
‘Following the Employment Tribunal’s remedy judgment, the case brought against CGD, its President, Masood Ahmed, and CGD Europe by Maya Forstater will come to a close.’
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
