In a recent landmark case between Phoenix and The Open University (OU), allegations of discrimination and harassment based on gender-critical beliefs have come to the forefront. The case centers around Phoenix’s experience at the OU and her interactions with Prof Westmarland. This article examines the findings of the employment tribunal and sheds light on the implications of the case.
Allegation 1: Racist Uncle Comment
One of the key allegations made by Phoenix was that Prof Westmarland likened her presence in the department to having a racist uncle at the Christmas dinner table. This comment conveys a sense of discomfort and exclusion that Phoenix experienced within the academic setting. Such a comparison not only undermines her intellectual contributions but also isolates her from meaningful engagement within the department.
Tribunal Finding: Gender-critical Beliefs
The employment tribunal found that Prof Westmarland’s response to Phoenix’s gender-critical beliefs was essentially a reprimand. By expressing her gender-critical views, Phoenix was admonished rather than engaged in constructive dialogue. This finding highlights the need for open and respectful discourse within academic institutions, even when opinions differ, to promote intellectual growth and understanding.
Lack of action by the OU
The tribunal also observed that the OU did not take appropriate action to address the issue when Phoenix raised concerns about a letter that criticized gender-critical perspectives. The lack of response by the institution had a chilling effect on Phoenix’s freedom to express her beliefs and conduct gender-critical research. It raises questions about the university’s commitment to fostering an inclusive environment for diverse viewpoints.
Implications on human lives
One of the statements examined by the tribunal implied that the Gender Critical Research Network (GCRN), to which Phoenix belonged, put human lives at risk. Such an implication not only tarnishes the reputation of the GCRN but also creates a hostile environment for those affiliated with it. The impact reaches beyond the individual level and has consequences for the credibility and future of gender-critical research.
Supportive attendees
The tribunal noted that several attendees at the relevant meeting expressed support for gender identity views rather than Phoenix’s gender-critical beliefs. This lack of support within her academic community further isolated Phoenix, limiting her ability to contribute meaningfully to discussions and creating a sense of exclusion within the department. It highlights the importance of fostering a diverse and inclusive environment that respects a range of perspectives.
Constructive Dismissal
The tribunal concluded that Phoenix’s resignation from the OU in 2021 amounted to constructive dismissal. The combination of the alleged discriminatory behavior, lack of support, and hostile environment resulted in an untenable working situation for Phoenix. This finding raises concerns about the impact of workplace discrimination on individuals’ career prospects and overall well-being.
Failure to address harassment
According to the tribunal’s judgment, the OU failed to take proper action to address the harassment faced by Phoenix. The institution’s inaction allowed the harassment to persist, which had significant detrimental effects on Phoenix’s well-being and ability to work in a conducive environment. The lack of a valid reason for not intervening raises questions about the institution’s commitment to creating a safe and respectful workplace for all.
Post-Employment Victimisation
The tribunal found that the OU’s suspension of an investigation into Phoenix’s grievance constituted post-employment victimization. This act further compounded the discrimination and harassment experienced by Phoenix and demonstrates a disregard for the well-being and rights of individuals even after their employment ends. It underscores the need for organizations to take responsibility for addressing grievances regardless of an employee’s status.
Successful Complaints and Unlawful Harassment
The employment tribunal upheld Phoenix’s complaints of direct discrimination, harassment, constructive unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal. These decisions reinforce the importance of recognizing and addressing gender-based discrimination and harassment within professional settings. The tribunal’s statement that accusing individuals with gender-critical views of transphobia and creating a hostile environment is unlawful underlines the need for respectful and inclusive dialogue that fosters a diverse range of perspectives.
The case of Phoenix v. The Open University highlights the challenges faced by individuals expressing gender-critical beliefs and the need for inclusive and respectful dialogue within academic institutions. The tribunal’s findings regarding discrimination, harassment, constructive dismissal, and unlawful forms of harassment serve as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding individuals’ rights and creating an environment where diverse viewpoints are respected and valued. This case offers an opportunity for institutions to reflect on their practices, policies, and commitment to inclusivity and equality.