A 63-year-old Perth man has been dismissed from his job after a dispute over the use of pronouns for a non-binary colleague.
The incident, which has sparked considerable discussion, occurred during a workplace training session where the man referred to his younger colleague as “he,” despite their preference for “they/them” pronouns, which were also displayed on their name badge.
Following the incident, the man offered a verbal apology but reportedly refused a subsequent request for a formal written apology. This refusal led to an internal investigation by the company, culminating in his termination.
The case was initially pursued as an unfair dismissal claim in the Federal Court but was sent to the Fair Work Commission where it was reported to be settled.
This story was reported in The West and no public court records exist due to the private resolution.
KEY POINTS
– The company did not have a pronoun policy.
– The refusal to apologise was not based on faith or religious grounds, rather a belief of being bullied into gender politics. He also believed a verbal apology sufficed and that mandating pronouns infringed on personal rights.
– Equal opportunity legislation does have some protections against discrimination based on gender or intersex status
– While the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 provides protections against gender identity discrimination, it does not explicitly require the enforcement of specific pronoun usage.
– FWC does have more specific guidelines including a note that whilst the dictionary meaning of ‘harass’ implies repetition, one act may be sufficient. https://lnkd.in/gkh2BK2N
– HR Advice – Get ahead by having clear policies for all parties.
