Mackereth v Department for Work and Pensions [2022] EAT 99

In brief

Dr Mackereth, a DWP health assessor, refused on grounds of Christian belief to use transgender service users' preferred pronouns. MACKERETH LOST: the EAT dismissed his appeal [138]. The route matters, because the two tribunals split. The Employment Tribunal held his beliefs were NOT protected, failing Grainger (v); the EAT held that finding was an error, agreeing 'with the claimant that the ET erred in finding that (a) his belief in Genesis 1:27 did not amount to a protected characteristic' [118], the ET having 'impos[ed] too high a threshold for the protection of a belief under section 10' [117]. The correction changed nothing in the result: the ET's conclusions on belief 'did not impact upon its subsequent findings, in the alternative, on direct discrimination and harassment' [122], and the EAT could not see that the ET erred in concluding the DWP's measures were 'necessary and proportionate to meet a legitimate focus on the needs of potentially vulnerable service users' [138]. The employer's legitimate aims — protecting service user dignity, complying with equality duties, and maintaining public confidence — justified the restriction. The case confirms that professional conduct standards can lawfully require pronoun use without discriminating against employees who hold gender-critical or religious beliefs.

Key provisions

• holding-1 — Religious and gender-critical beliefs are protected, but professional conduct requirements can restrict their manifestation: Religious and gender-critical beliefs are protected under s.10 EA2010, but professional conduct requirements can restrict their manifestation where the restriction is proportionate.
• holding-2 — An employer's requirement to use preferred pronouns is a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims (service user dignity, equality compliance): An employer's requirement to use preferred pronouns is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of service user dignity and equality compliance.
• holding-3 — The belief holder does not have a right to impose the consequences of their belief on service users or colleagues: The belief holder does not have a right to impose the consequences of their belief on service users or colleagues. The right to hold a belief is distinct from the right to act on it.
• holding-4 — Professional contexts impose higher standards of conduct than purely private settings: Professional contexts impose higher standards of conduct than purely private settings. Healthcare, education, and safeguarding roles carry elevated expectations of respectful treatment.

When relevant

Pronoun policies, professional conduct standards in service delivery, belief-accommodation requests, healthcare and public-facing roles where trans service users are present. Directly relevant to L2-A6 (Behavioural Thresholds) and the competing-rights framework.