Council worker sacked for writing ‘AdultHumanMale’ instead of ‘o’ in his emails now faces £12,000 legal bill after losing court

A council worker who protested the use of woke pronouns has been hit with a £12,000 legal bill.

Jim Orwin lost his job because he refused to use ‘acceptable’ pronouns like himself and instead used the words ‘XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale’ at the end of his emails.

The ICT project lead was suspended and eventually sacked by East Riding of Yorkshire Council in 2022 for refusing to change the footer on his emails.

In May, he challenged his authority to a tribunal, saying he had been discriminated against for his beliefs and had been unfairly dismissed, as if he would have ‘facilitated the continued spread of evil’ if he had remained silent.

Although the panel dismissed the case and found that she had not been discriminated against, it accepted that her gender-critical beliefs amounted to a ‘philosophical belief protected under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010’.

But now Mr Orwin has been shocked by a £12,000 order to pay the council’s costs and an employment judge has ruled his claim in court was ‘vexatious’.

The ICT project lead was suspended and eventually sacked by East Riding of Yorkshire Council in 2022 when he refused to change the footer of his emails.

The debate began in April 2022, when Caroline Lacey, Chief Executive of East Riding of Yorkshire Council, sent an email to all staff asking them to “consider adding pronouns” to their emails.

Staff were told that this was an ‘individual choice’ and were given links to websites that offered explanations of why pronouns could be used.

The court heard the reason the policy was introduced was to ‘encourage the participation of people who identify with their gender in a way that is not consistent with their biological sex’.

However, after receiving the email Mr Orwin ‘quickly formed the view’ that this was done to ‘make it easier to identify himself’.

He told the hearing: ‘If the email had contained a genuine invitation for colleagues to add pronouns to their email signatures and did not make it easier to identify, I would have chosen the ‘Do Not Show’ option to not show the pronouns.

‘It is my firm belief that announcing pronouns in emails or before meetings is a political gesture designed to intimidate anyone who does not embrace the controversial gender identity ideology.’

He ‘commented’ the email to allow employees to add their own pronouns rather than choosing from a list.

So he decided to add the words ‘XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale’ and subsequently contacted his manager to give him ‘advance notice’.

Asked why he couldn’t choose the ‘other’ option for pronouns, Mr Orwin said: ‘Not adding pronouns would be accepting this rubbish and is not an option I could choose.’

The court heard Mr Orwin thought the only way to challenge the policy was to ‘deliberately adopt provocative pronouns’.

Mr Orwin decided to add the words ‘XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale’ and subsequently contacted his manager to give him ‘advance notice’.

However, he was told that his choices were unacceptable because they ‘could be considered offensive to others’.

He continued to defy orders to remove them, claiming this was ‘unlawful discrimination’, and was summoned to a disciplinary hearing in August 2022.

He said he would not back down because the issue was ‘about principles’ and he was dismissed.

Mr Orwin, from Hull, said four different employment judges had dealt with various stages of the court process between July 2023 and May 2023 and it was never suggested that his claim was vexatious.

He said: ‘Neither the judges nor the Council’s legal team raised this possibility. This word was never mentioned.

‘The first suggestion that my request might be considered vexatious was in the Council’s latest costs application. I understand that it is not uncommon for employers who manage to defend their claims in the employment tribunal to apply for costs, but the general principle in employment tribunals is that each party is responsible for its own legal costs. In his costs order, the judge said that I was pursuing the case because I found the concept of gender self-identification objectionable; I think any reasonable person would think that it’s perfectly consistent with having gender-critical beliefs, and therefore not annoying at all.

‘Those who share gender-critical beliefs should be able to bring legitimate claims of belief discrimination to the Employment Tribunal without the threat of sanctions against them simply because of their protected beliefs.

‘I think in the current climate much of the British public will view this costs order decision as another example of two-tier jurisdiction and as somehow inconsistent with the Employment Tribunal’s duty of political neutrality.’

The court ruled that Mr Orwin’s ‘critical belief in gender’ constituted a ‘philosophical belief’.

But Employment Judge Ian Miller concluded he had not been discriminated against by being told to change his pronouns.

He said: ‘The main reason why (Mr Orwin) decided to add ‘XY-chromosome-male/adult-human-male’ was out of protest.’

Mr Miller added: ‘The footer was designed to provoke and, given its admission of possible attack, we believe it was designed to be offensive.’

The judge said the implementation of the policy was ‘poorly thought out and poorly implemented’.

He denied allegations of discrimination, saying: ‘None of the treatment he experienced resulted from his beliefs (or expressions of belief).

The unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed because it was ‘within the range of reasonable responses from a reasonable employer’.

In awarding costs, the judge found that Mr Orwin had “merely” pursued the claim because he “found both the concept of gender determination and the council’s decision to adopt a policy stating that they believed their gender determination ideology was valid to be objectionable”. .’

Mr Orwin has now launched a crowdfunding bid to raise cash for the council’s expenses.

Yorkshire Council’s Eastern Riding Center has been approached for comment.