The Best Nannies & Housekeepers Let us help you with your search
please complete our client application form
or call 00 44 207 118 0122
The Best Butlers and Serving Staff Let us help you with your search
please complete our client application form
or call 00 44 207 118 0122
The Best Domestic Couples Let us help you with your search
please complete our client application form
or call 00 44 207 118 0122
The Best Live-in and Live-out Housekeepers Let us help you with your search
please complete our client application form
or call 00 44 207 118 0122
The Best Cooks & Chefs Let us help you with your search
please complete our client application form
or call 00 44 207 118 0122
The Best Cleaning & Housekeeping Staff Let us help you with your search
please complete our client application form
or call 00 44 207 118 0122
The Best Carers & Companions Let us help you with your search
please complete our client application form
or call 00 44 207 118 0122
The Best Live-in Nannies Let us help you with your search
please complete our client application form
or call 00 44 207 118 0122
The Best Nannies & Housekeepers Let us help you with your search
please complete our client application form
or call 00 44 207 118 0122
The Best Chauffeurs & Drivers Let us help you with your search
please complete our client application form
or call 00 44 207 118 0122

There are no “Thought Police”

There are no “Thought Police”

There Are  No “Thought Police”…. It’s Official

 “You can tell me what to do…but you can’t tell me what to think”…one would think that a fairly obvious restriction, but it has taken a court case to point it out.  The case revolves around tax expert Ms. Maya Forstater, who was employed at the Centre for Global Development (CGD).  She tweeted her views that transgender women could not change their biological sex. Some people  disagreed and complained that her tweets were “transphobic” and made them feel uncomfortable.

Ms. Forstater was silenced and effectively became a “non person” simply because her views did not coincide with others in her place of work.  Her contract was not renewed and her profile was removed  from CGD’s website.

The Tribunal (Employment Judge Tayler)  had decided at a preliminary hearing that the claimant’s belief was not protected under the Equality Act 2010. Ms. Forstater appealed against that judgement and the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the appeal, deciding that the relevant belief is protected.  A further hearing was then set to determine whether Ms. Forstater had been subject to:

(1) Direct discrimination because of belief

(2) Harassment related to belief

(3) Indirect discrimination (belief)

(4) Indirect sex discrimination

(5) Victimisation (sex or belief)

In the recent hearing, the unanimous judgement of the Tribunal was that Ms. Forstater was subjected to the following direct discrimination:

  1. The decision not to offer the Claimant an employment contract
  2. The decision not to renew the Claimant’s visiting fellowship
  3. Additionally, that she had been subject to victimisation for having her profile removed from the CGD website

Other claims of victimisation, harassment and indirect discrimination were dismissed.  A further hearing will now be set to determine damages etc. has yet to be set.

The Graham Agency, keeping you informed.