Mick Hartley

Another sign that the gender tide is turning:

A social worker who was suspended over her gender critical views has been awarded almost £58,000 in damages from Westminster city council and Social Work England.

In what lawyers described as an unprecedented move by a court to award exemplary damages against a regulator, an employment tribunal called for both the council and the watchdog to train their staff in the principles of freedom of speech.

Rachel Meade, the social worker, said she was “delighted with such a positive judgement after a such a long and dreadful experience. It’s been a hard fight, but I feel relieved and liberated that justice and freedom of speech has prevailed.”

Meade, from Dartford, Kent, had sued the council and Social Work England in 2022 for harassment and sex discrimination after she was suspended over her belief that a person “cannot change their sex”.

Meade was given a one-year warning by case examiners at Social Work England after the regulator received a complaint from a member of the public in 2020 about posts that she had shared or liked on Facebook. The council then suspended her on charges of gross misconduct before giving her a final written warning….

Awarding the damages, the tribunal judge, Richard Nicolle, said that Social Work England’s actions constituted a “serious abuse of its power as a regulatory body”….

As well has making the damages award, the tribunal recommended that the council act within six months to ensure “that all of its managers and human resources staff receive training on freedom of expression and protected belief”.

A thread from Legal Feminist:

Exemplary damages are awarded to punish conduct that is "oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional".

They are rare. The Legal Feminists are not aware of any other case in which exemplary damages have been awarded against a regulator.

Explaining the award, the tribunal said that SWE had "allowed its processes to be subverted to punish and suppress the Claimant's lawful political speech".

Both respondents must also pay aggravated damages.

Aggravated damages are awarded when a party has behaved in a "high-handed, malicious, insulting or oppressive manner" in committing the act of discrimination….

This is, in other words, a big deal.