Christian teacher sacked after refusing to use trans pupil’s preferred pronouns loses religious discrimination case

24 May 2025, 12:06

A Christian teacher who was sacked after looking at a transgender child's online safeguarding report and transcribing it to her personal computer has lost an unfair dismissal and religious discrimination claim.

The teacher, who cannot be named and is referred to as A, was informed in summer of 2021 that a child who had been born female - referred to as child X - would be joining her class.

Her tribunal heard she was asked by the school, run by Nottinghamshire County Council, to refer to the child with a male name and pronouns at the parents' request.

The teacher raised her concerns with the headteacher over the summer break, writing in a letter: "I am concerned that I am required to give 'affirmative care' to somebody who may regret it later.

"I am convinced that blanket affirmative care would be very damaging, potentially leading to irreversible physical and mental harm."

The headteacher told A in a letter: "You are entitled to hold your own personal beliefs and we fully support you in your right to hold those beliefs, however, as those beliefs if acted on could be a direct breach of GDPR and an act of direct discrimination you must not act on them."

Read more: Princess Kate has ‘always been there’ for me, brother James Middleton says

Read more: Government delays child poverty strategy amid two-child benefit cap rethink

Child X was moved to another class in the same year group "to safeguard him from any potential harm", the school said.

The tribunal heard that A was given strict instructions including that she must use the name and pronouns the family requested when interacting with child X.

The teacher escalated her concerns and her representative wrote to the school saying "it would go against her conscience, informed by her Christian faith, to affirm a young child in their gender dysphoria".

She was suspended from her role as a teacher on September 20 2021 as the row over how she should refer to the child continued.

A wrote to the headteacher that she believes "in the truth of the Bible", adding: "Sex is a God-given reality which should not be conflated with 'gender identity'. Being male or female is an immutable biological fact."

After meetings in which the school reiterated that A must refer to child X as male, the school was reassured that A's suspension could be lifted and she returned on October 13.

During that school year, A repeatedly accessed child X's online safeguarding file on the school's CPOMS system, the hearing was told.

Former MP Joanna Cherry vs trans activist on Supreme Court gender ruling | LBC

"She created no report on the CPOMS system regarding any welfare concerns she might have about child X, either on this occasion or any other later occasion," the tribunal ruled.

"She was fully aware that her use of CPOMS in this manner was unauthorised, and indeed she accepted during cross examination that her access of the CPOMS system was wrong not only on this occasion but on all subsequent occasions."

Acting on behalf of the county council, barrister Ed Beever said A had also "gone behind the back" of the school's designated safeguarding lead (DSL) to do so.

The teacher wrote a letter to the school in February after accessing child X's reports several times, saying: "I remain convinced the school is disregarding its duty of care with respect to child X.

"Based on the information I have seen and heard, child X is clearly suffering from serious mental health problems."

The school did not discover A had been accessing the files or transcribing them to her personal computer and a memory stick until the teacher's legal representatives told Nottinghamshire County Council in April that A was planning to apply for judicial review over the council's alleged failure to address safeguarding concerns she had raised over "affirming" child X.

After discovering A was accessing the reports, the teacher was suspended on May 9 2022 and, after a formal disciplinary hearing by the school on September 14 2022, she was fired.

During the disciplinary hearing, the headteacher said: "The information is hugely private to the family and is a snapshot - she cannot access all CPOMS so she has not seen all the work being done by school - and she did not ask."

The teacher brought a case against the school, claiming she was subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure, automatic unfair dismissal, ordinary unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct religion or belief discrimination, and harassment related to religion or belief.

However, all her claims were dismissed by the employment tribunal.

Employment judge Peter McTigue said in the ruling published on Friday: "In short, (A) believed that her opinion was correct and that the approach adopted by the school and by child X and their parents was incorrect.

"That was clearly unreasonable as (A) was not in possession of all relevant information regarding child X at any point in time including, for example, child X's medical information."

Judge McTigue also ruled that transitioning children should have anonymity over their true biological sex "for life" so as to respect their privacy and ensure their safety in the future, imposing reporting restrictions upon the identities of both A and child X.

He said: "We also conclude that the restricted reporting order should remain in place indefinitely.

"In short, the right for X to live a life in their chosen gender identity for the rest of their life prevails...

"If we were to place a restriction on the duration of the restricted reporting order, there is a risk that the biological sex of child X could become known in the future.

"This could result in child X's biological sex becoming aware to groups of people including for example their future classmates, employers, partners, friends and indeed, in time, their own children.

"Child X has a right to privacy regarding their biological sex for the remainder of their life.

"Through the process of jigsaw identification, there is a substantial risk that child X's identity and biological sex would become known if the claimant's name were made public."

In a statement after the ruling, A said: "I am very disappointed with the judgment. It misrepresents the facts. I ask myself if the courts are afraid of hearing any evidence that socially transitioning young children is harmful. The ruling goes to great lengths to support those who silence, discredit, and remove anybody who dares ask if we are doing harm.

"I will appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The ruling refuses to confront the extremely important issues regarding safeguarding and transgender affirmation in primary schools which is at the heart of this case.

"Like all teachers at the school, I owed a safeguarding duty to child X.

"I could not participate in causing harm to child X. The tragic stories of 'detransitioners', clear expert scientific evidence, and the recent Supreme Court ruling, back and vindicate me."

Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, which supports A, said: "A's story exposes the confusion and untruths that have been embedded in primary schools over human sexuality and identity.

"This has developed into an education crisis which needs to be stopped."