Christian teacher 'sacked after pupil pronouns row'

The hearing is taking place at Nottingham Employment Tribunal Centre

A Christian teacher allegedly sacked after refusing to use male prounouns for an eight-year-old girl has told an employment tribunal she "could not go against her conscience".

The teacher, who cannot be named and is referred to as A, was dismissed for gross misconduct after raising concerns about the safeguarding of the girl who wanted to "socially transition" and use male pronouns.

Supported by advocacy group Christian Concern, A is bringing a case against Nottinghamshire County Council, which runs the school, on the grounds of victimisation for whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and discrimination because of her beliefs.

The tribunal is expected to last until 14 March.

In her witness statement, heard at Nottingham Employment Tribunal Centre, A said she was told by her school in 2021 that a child who had been born female, referred to as Child X, would be joining her class but she should refer to the child with a male name and pronouns at the parent's request, which left her uncomfortable.

A said staff were provided with literature largely informed by campaign group Stonewall that was "trans-affirming", biased and "ideologically informed and promoted gender ideology over scientific fact".

She said she felt affirming the child would cause "irreversible harm" and that it was "coercive and disrespectful" of the school to force her to use male pronouns for the pupil.

'Draconian response'

After carrying out research over the summer holidays, which included watching YouTube videos of de-transitioners who had regretted their decision, A said she felt she needed to "speak up" about the potential harm the school's approach could cause Child X.

She is said to have raised her concerns with the school's head teacher who told her she had no choice but to use Child X's preferred pronouns because it was the parent's request and that she had to "go along with it".

After telling the head teacher she did have a choice and could not "in good conscience go along with it", Child X was moved to a different class and A was suspended later that month while a disciplinary investigation was carried out for failing to comply with a "reasonable request".

A said she felt the school had ignored her attempts to navigate the situation by using a gender-neutral name for the child and had shown a "draconian" response to her safeguarding concerns.

She was reinstated the next month after agreeing she would not breach confidentiality about the child's birth name or gender by telling anyone else about the issue.

After returning to school, A's concerns about Child X continued and she lodged a safeguarding letter to the school's governing body but she said her concerns were "ignored at every level".

Deciding she could not resolve the issue internally, A said she had "no other option than to consider disclosing information about the child externally" and a report was made to Nottinghamshire County Council, which subsequently concluded it was satisfied the appropriate action had been taken by the school.

After involving lawyers and pursuing legal action, A said the school raised concerns that she had broken confidentiality by sharing information with a third party and was suspended, before she was later dismissed and reported to the Teaching Regulation Agency, the Disclosure and Barring Service and the Information Commissioner's Office.

Computer searches

A said she felt the school had been "encouraging Child X on a path to self-destruction".

She said: "I pursued this course of action because I care enough about children to insist we ask if we are doing harm.

A said she felt she was "cut off from her colleagues" following the suspension and had been "treated like a criminal".

"I miss the children and it is sad to think that they do not even know why I left. I was treated as if I was a danger to them," she said.

The tribunal was told A had accessed information about Child X on CPOMS, an online system used by schools to log and monitor child protection and other pupil welfare issues.

Acting on behalf of the county council, barrister Ed Beever said A had "gone behind the back" of the school's designated safeguarding lead in doing so.

The tribunal was told A had accessed the system several times to view information about Child X, which she said was "professional curiosity" because she had heard the child's behaviour was poor.

"What I found was very sobering, it seemed to line up with what the experts were saying. That I had a point.

"I felt the head and the school did not want me to see anything which would demonstrate that the expert reports they dismissed might be accurate and correct."

The tribunal continues.