Meade v Westminster City Council and Social Work England [2023] ET 2211483/2022

In brief

Rachel Meade, a social worker, faced disciplinary investigation by her employer (Westminster City Council) and a fitness-to-practise investigation by her regulator (Social Work England) after expressing gender-critical views on social media. The Employment Tribunal found direct discrimination, harassment, and victimisation. Critically, the tribunal awarded exemplary damages — a rare remedy in discrimination cases — reflecting its finding that both the employer and the regulator had acted with abuse of process. The case demonstrates the risk of institutional overreach when pursuing staff for holding protected beliefs.

Key provisions

• holding-1 — Exemplary damages can be awarded in discrimination cases where there is deliberate abuse of process: Exemplary damages can be awarded in discrimination cases where there is deliberate abuse of process by the respondent.
• holding-2 — Both employers and professional regulators can be liable for gender-critical belief discrimination: Both employers and professional regulators can be liable for gender-critical belief discrimination. Regulatory fitness-to-practise investigations may themselves constitute discrimination.
• holding-3 — Regulatory fitness-to-practise investigations triggered by protected beliefs may themselves constitute discrimination: Regulatory fitness-to-practise investigations triggered by protected beliefs, rather than by specific professional misconduct, may constitute direct discrimination or harassment.
• holding-4 — The award signals judicial concern about institutional responses to gender-critical beliefs: The exemplary damages award signalled judicial concern about institutional responses to gender-critical beliefs and the use of regulatory processes to suppress protected beliefs.

When relevant

Social workers, teachers, healthcare professionals, and other regulated professionals facing fitness-to-practise investigations or employer disciplinary action for expressing gender-critical beliefs on social media or in private settings. The exemplary damages precedent is relevant to Board Briefing risk quantification for regulated professions.