Sacked doctor sues former employer for refusing to call trans-woman "she"

It's a Daily Mail report but for the purposes of discussion let's take it seriously and treat it as accurate.

It's not a question of whether we could see doctors disciplined, because this is a case in which a doctor already has been disciplined — his appointment as a DWP assessor has been terminated because of his refusal to follow his employer's policy on the treatment of trans people.

Dr Mackereth's employer was a public body, but I don't think that matters here; a private sector business might obviously adopt a policy of accepting and respecting their customer's gender identification, and might require their staff to implement that policy.

Reading the Daily Mail article two things stand out.

First, the journalist was briefed by Dr Mackereth and/or his advisers. It give a fairly uncritical presentation of the case as they would like it to be seen. There may be other ways to see the case, and other relevant facts or points that Dr Mackereth does not find it in his interests to draw to your attention. If you're interested, you'll have to research those yourself.

Secondly, Mackereth's contract was terminated in 2018 and his employment tribunal case was heard (and went against him) in 2019. In a sense this is old news. The reason it has come up again is because of the somewhat similar Forstater case. Forstater, like Mackereth, lost in the employment tribunal but, unlike Mackereth, appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where she won in June 2021. Mackereth believes that his case is very similar to hers and therefore he now wants to appeal.

Three issues arise in the appeal:

1. Is Mackereth out of time? You can't normally wait three years before appealing a tribunal judgment. He may need special leave from the court in order to proceed.
2. Are the facts in Mackereth's case really that similar to Forstater? The Daily Mail article doesn't give a lot of detail on that.
3. The outcome in Forstater's case was that her beliefs about the immutability of sex were protected even if they offended people, and they "must be tolerated in a pluralist society". But this did not mean that she could "indiscriminately and gratuitously refer to trans persons in terms other than they would wish". So the order she got was not an order that she be reinstated in her job or compensated for wrongful dismissal; it was an order that the case go back the employment tribunal so that the tribunal could consider whether she had been fired because of her belief (firing not permitted) or because on account of her belief she had acted towards her clients in ways that were offensive to them (firing permitted). SFAIK the tribunal has not yet made a finding about this in Forstater's case. Presumably the same distinction will need to be made in Mackereth's case.