A council worker who protested against the use of woke pronouns has been hit with a £12,000 legal bill.
Jim Orwin lost his job when he refused to use “acceptable” pronouns like he/him and instead used the words “XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale” at the end of his emails.
The person responsible for the ICT project was suspended and eventually sacked by East Riding of Yorkshire Council in 2022 when he refused to change the approval.
In May he took the authority to court, saying that they had discriminated against his beliefs and that he had been unfairly fired, as if he had remained silent he would have “facilitated the constant advance of evil.”
Although the panel dismissed his case and concluded that he had not been discriminated against, it did accept that his gender-critical beliefs amounted to a “protected philosophical belief within the meaning of section 10 of the Equality Act 2010”.
But now Mr Orwin has been forced to pay the council £12,000 after an employment judge ruled his claim to the tribunal was “vexatious”.
Jim Orwin (pictured) has been ordered to pay £12,000 in legal costs after challenging his dismissal by East Riding of Yorkshire Council.
The row began when East Riding of Yorkshire Council chief executive Caroline Lacey sent an email to all staff in April 2022, urging them to “consider adding pronouns” to their emails.
Staff were told it was an “individual choice” and were given links to websites that offered explanations of why those words might be used.
The court heard that the reason for introducing the policy was to “promote the inclusion of people who identify their gender in a way that is not necessarily consistent with their biological sex.”
However, after receiving the email, Orwin “quickly formed the opinion” that it had been done to “facilitate self-identification.”
He told the hearing: ‘If the email had contained a genuine invitation simply for colleagues to add pronouns to email signatures and had not facilitated self-identification, I would have chosen the ‘Do not display’ option to not display the pronouns.
“I firmly believe that announcing pronouns in emails or before meetings is a political gesture designed to intimidate anyone who does not embrace the controversial ideology of gender identity.”
He “interpreted” the email to allow employees to add their own pronouns instead of having to choose from a list.
Therefore, he decided to add the words ‘XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale’ and after this he contacted his manager to let him know in advance.
When asked why he couldn’t just choose the “other” pronoun option, Orwin said, “Not adding a pronoun would be accepting this garbage and it’s not an option I can choose.”
The court heard how Mr Orwin thought the only way to challenge policy was to “adopt deliberately provocative pronouns”.
However, he was told that his decisions were unacceptable because they “could be considered offensive to others.”
The ICT project manager was suspended and eventually fired by the council, pictured, in 2022 when he refused to change the footer of his emails.
He continued to defy orders to remove them, claiming it was “unlawful discrimination” and in August 2022 he was summoned to a disciplinary hearing.
He said he would not back down because “it was about principles” and was fired.
Mr Orwin, from Hull, said four different employment judges dealt with different stages of the tribunal process and there was never any suggestion that his claim was vexatious.
He said: ‘None of the judges, nor the Council’s legal team, even suggested that possibility. The word was never mentioned.
‘The first suggestion that my claim could be considered vexatious was the Council’s recent costs application. I understand that it is not unusual for employers who manage to defend claims at the employment tribunal to make an application for costs, but the general principle in employment tribunals is that each party is responsible for their own legal costs. In his costs order, the judge said that I pursued the case because I found objectionable the concept of gender self-identification, which I believe any reasonable person would consider to be entirely consistent with the holding of gender-critical beliefs and is therefore not at all annoying.
‘Those who share gender-critical beliefs should be able to bring legitimate claims of belief discrimination to the Employment Tribunal without the threat of sanctions being imposed simply for their protected beliefs.
“I believe that in the current climate, the majority of the British public will see this costs ruling as yet another example of a two-tier judiciary, and somewhat inconsistent with the Employment Court’s duty of political impartiality.”
The court concluded that Mr. Orwin’s “gender critical belief” constitutes a “philosophical belief.”
However, employment judge Ian Miller concluded that he had not been discriminated against by being asked to change his pronouns.
He said: “The real reason (Mr Orwin) decided to add ‘boy with XY chromosome/adult-human-man’ was in protest.”
Miller added: “The footer was designed to provoke and, given its acceptance of potential offence, we believe it was designed to offend.”
The judge said the implementation of the policy was “poorly thought out and poorly executed.”
Dismissing her allegations of discrimination, he said: ‘None of the treatment you experienced was due to your beliefs (or expression of beliefs).
His wrongful termination claim was also dismissed because it was “within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.”
In awarding costs, the judge determined that Mr. Orwin brought the suit “solely” because he “found objectionable both the concept of gender self-identification and the council’s decision to adopt a policy indicating that they believed the ideology of gender self-identification gender was valid.” .’
Orwin has now launched a crowdfunding offer to raise cash to cover the council’s costs.
East Riding of Yorkshire Council has been contacted for comment.