Council worker who was sacked for using 'incorrect pronouns' forced to use retirement savings to pay legal bill

The ICT project officer took the council to an employment tribunal, claiming discrimination against his beliefs and unfair dismissal.

However, the tribunal dismissed his case and ordered him to pay costs after ruling his claim was "vexatious".

The situation arose in April 2022 when the council's chief executive Caroline Lacey suggested staff consider adding pronouns to their internal and external emails.

Staff were provided with a drop-down menu offering options including "he/him/his", "she/her/hers", "they/them/their", "do not show", or "other", along with a link to mypronouns.org for guidance.

Orwin said: "It wasn't mandatory, it was to enter pronouns should you wish to do so. It was my decision to do it."

Upon receiving the email, he "quickly formed the view" it had been done to "facilitate self-identification".

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Farage slams silent Starmer after PM 'ignores' Reform UK's immigration demands - 'Does he care?'
• Councillors 'fail to listen' after no poppies placed on lampposts in Derbyshire suburb
• Residents bemoan 'information vacuum' after hotel found to be housing migrants

Before this issue emerged, Orwin had simply signed off with his name and position within the council. Employment Judge Ian Miller concluded Orwin had not been discriminated against by being told to change his pronouns.

"The real reason that [Orwin] decided to add 'XY-chromosome-guy/adult-human-male' was in protest," the judge said. The tribunal panel found the footer was "designed to provoke and... was designed to offend."

While the judge noted the council's policy implementation was "poorly thought through and badly executed", he dismissed the discrimination claims.

The tribunal accepted Mr Orwin's gender-critical beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010, but ruled his dismissal was "well within the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer."

The judge awarded costs after finding Orwin pursued the claim solely because he objected to gender self-identification. Orwin will now have to use his retirement savings to cover the £12,000 legal costs.

Speaking from his home, he remained defiant about his actions: "I think it is all crazy. I regret that I no longer work at the council, but if the same thing happened to me again I would do the same thing. I have no regrets for what I did."

He added: "I think people should be able to identify whatever they want, but I don't believe it should be imposed on other people to have to address them that way."

His wife Julie, 66, expressed support for her husband of 48 years, saying: "I feel sad for Jim. He really did like that job. He put everything into it."