Peter Wilkins worked for the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) in Porton Down, Wiltshire. Though he resigned from his role in 2022 following harassment and discrimination he faced as a result of his gender critical views, a tribunal ruled that his departure was constructive dismissal, according to reporting by The Times on Friday (21 March).
Wilkins stated his support for the concept of immutable sex, and was labelled by colleagues as transphobic, “sad and pathetic” and “a rubbish employee”, according to The Times.
The publication also reported that Wilkins liked a post on LinkedIn from the charity Sex Matters, which has been described as gender-critical. Following this 'like', a colleague labelled Wilkins' beliefs as an “ideology” and stated that the matter should be referred to security and HR.
Wilkins asked for management intervention and explained to HR that his beliefs were protected after the Maya Foraster v Centre for Global Development ruling, which awarded tax professional Maya Forstater £100,000 for discrimination and victimisation after she lost her job due to posting gender-critical beliefs on Twitter. The tribunal concerning Wilkins found that senior staff did not intervene and stop harassment.
HR's role in navigating situations like these is getting harder, according to Rustom Tata, head of employment at law firm DMH Stallard.
Speaking to HR magazine, Tata said: “In a world of polarised opinions, where soundbites seem to carry more weight than carefully considered arguments, the role of HR in creating a supportive environment is becoming increasingly difficult.
"In Wilkins' case, it is clear that the tribunal was critical of the employer for not stepping in once it was clear that an internal staff group had taken against the employee due to his beliefs.
“The key takeaway is perhaps that HR needs to be vigilant to the tensions between groups of staff holding different protected characteristics, and in this case different views, and try to ensure that the workplace environment is neutral and supportive for all. That is easier said than done, however.”
Read more: HMRC worker wins £25k for harassment after manager sent unwanted birthday card
Dan Pollard, employment law partner for the law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, added that HR professionals must apply critical thinking in cases like Wilkins'.
He told HR magazine: “Organisations should be especially careful that they treat employees even-handedly.
“There can sometimes be an element of 'group think' within organisations motivated by an effort to be inclusive and progressive. This is a reminder of the need to critically assess even well-meaning HR policies in case they impact the rights of others.”
The Times wrote that in 2021, neuroscientist Sophie Scott was awarded the Royal Society’s Michael Faraday prize. Following this incident, a DSTL employee wrote on the internal blog that it was “pretty disheartening” due to the fact that Scott was “well known for her non-inclusive views on trans and non-binary people.”
Wilkins complained to the moderators of the blog that the employee's comment was unfair to Scott, and that the messages implied that anyone who had gender-critical views should not receive public recognition for their work.
Read more: Siemens targets engineering gender bias
Not all views are protected under the Equality Act, so it can be difficult for employers to handle conflicting views in the workplace, according to Alex Mizzi, legal director at law firm Howard Kennedy.
Mizzi told HR magazine: “Employers need to ensure that employees don't express their views in a way which amounts to harassment or bullying of other staff, but without interfering disproportionately with their ability to express their views in a reasonable way. This line can be impossibly narrow and the legal outcomes are difficult to predict in advance.
“The key point for employers is to avoid targeting staff for holding particular views or expressing them in a reasonable way, particularly where they express those views on social media or outside the workplace.”
George Miller, employment law specialist at law firm Roythornes Solicitors, added that HR leaders should be impartial if and when cases such as these arise.
He told HR magazine: “A key takeaway from this case is that senior staff failed to intervene when the claimant faced harassment, seemingly to avoid conflict with a vocal group of employees.
“HR leaders should proactively manage workplace tensions, ensuring that no employee is treated less favourably because of their beliefs. When conflicts arise, the focus should be on fostering a culture of open dialogue and inclusivity while enforcing policies that protect all perspectives equally.”
A DSTL spokesperson said: “We will review the judgement and following that, we will look to take any appropriate actions. We cannot make any further comment on individual cases.”
