Teacher sacked after refusing to use transgender pupil’s pronoun

SHE HAS STARTED LEGAL CASE AGAINST SCHOOL

A TRIBUNAL has heard how a Nottinghamshire teacher was sacked after raising concerns about a transgender pupil.

The woman, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the child, was dismissed after disclosing confidential details to lawyers when attempting to bring a judicial review against the school’s policies.

The primary school child, who was under the age of 11, was being “supported by their parents and the school” in their wishes to be identified as a female, having been born as a male. Now, the teacher, who is a “Bible-believing Christian”, has brought a legal case against the school.

She is being represented by the Christian Legal Centre, which describes itself as “providing legal support for those taking a stand for Jesus and the truth that flows from Him”. The teacher took to the witness stand at Nottingham’s Tribunal Hearing Centre on Carrington Street this week and was cross-examined by a barrister representing the school.

The child was moved from another school to the teacher’s school during a holiday period. The teacher, along with colleagues at the school, which also cannot be named, was notified of the child’s imminent induction to the school during this period. The child had been bullied at their previous school and was being moved as a result.

The teachers were asked to treat the pupil as a female. But there was to be no reference to the pupil’s previous gender and they were to live “by stealth”. This would mean that other pupils and parents would not be made aware the pupil was transgender and had been born a male.

The child was to start in the sacked teacher’s class in September. During the holiday period after being informed, the teacher carried out some research into children who are transgender. She then informed the head teacher of her position verbally, telling her that she didn’t have a problem calling an adult by their reassigned pronoun but “couldn’t” for a child so young.

She referenced research which said that children don’t have the competency to make such decisions at such a young age.

The head and the teacher had a meeting soon after.

The tribunal heard that the head told the teacher she was “entitled to her beliefs” but had to respect the choice the family was making. She informed the teacher that she would be going to HR for advice.

Soon after, the teacher wrote to the head teacher, expanding on her previously relayed thoughts. Particularly, she took issue with the fact that parents and children were not allowed to know of the child’s history and the fact that, if asked by a teacher or pupil, she wouldn’t be able to relay them the truth.

This, she said, made her feel “uncomfortable”. She argued that the child, at such a young age, may end up revealing their identity themselves to peers and the teacher said she worried about how this could affect other children and their families if she couldn’t explain the situation to them.

At the tribunal on Tuesday, she denied to the barrister representing the school that she “had a desire to break confidentiality”.

The day after she had sent her letter, the head teacher responded, saying: “We fully support your rights to hold these beliefs but if you act on them then it could constitute direct discrimination.”

At the end of the letter, the teacher was asked to not come to work while the matter was resolved. The teacher told the hearing on Tuesday that she “conceded” to this.

At a follow-up meeting on September 6 to “explore” options, the head, whom the teacher said she had a “cordial relationship with”, said that she “respected” the teacher’s views, wouldn’t expect her to change them and wouldn’t want her to change them. But the teacher argued that the head then contradicted this by asking her to act against those beliefs.

The teacher then employed a legal team to respond to the head, in which a list of reasons were set out as to why the teacher could not comply with what was required of her. She was suspended on September 21 preceding a disciplinary investigation, to which she says she was “shocked”.

Her suspension was lifted two weeks later after a reinstatement meeting during which the teacher had accepted her duty of confidentiality. But the dispute continued and she was dismissed six months later.

The tribunal, due to last eight days in total, continues tomorrow.