Employee who misgendered trans colleague awarded £51k

A learning technologist with dyspraxia at the University of Manchester who ‘persistently’ misgendered a trans colleague has been awarded £51,200 after she won her claims for discrimination arising from disability and indirect disability discrimination.

Karenne Sylvester, 56, successfully argued at the employment tribunal in Manchester that her dyspraxia affected her ability to remember pronoun changes after her colleague, referred to as “CD” in the case, had gender transitioned.

Dyspraxia is usually associated with problems with physical coordination, but has complex characteristics that affect the way the brain processes information

It was not in dispute that Sylvester misgendered CD on 16 February 2023 in front of five or six other staff.

At the time, CD corrected Sylvester. Syvester apologised, making a comment suggesting she would probably misgender CD in the future and was apologising for future occasions as well. Everyone went back to work, but CD was later found crying. Sylvester tried to speak to CD later, but he refused.

An investigation followed, during which Sylvester was told she was not permitted to work in the main office, meaning she was to have no physical interaction with the rest of her team in the shared open-plan workspace, along with around 40 other staff.

When she came on campus, she had to book a back room on the same floor to avoid coming into contact with CD. She was also not allowed to discuss the misgendering complaint with her colleagues, including her own line manager.

The investigation was led by Stuart Phillipson, e-learning manager and CD’s line manager, and Martin Banks, lead people partner in the faculty.

The tribunal found it was clear to Philipson and Banks, the tribunal’s first and second respondents, from an investigation meeting four weeks later, that Sylvester was saying that her dyspraxia made it more difficult for her to gender CD correctly. “That is exactly what they have recorded in their investigation report,” said the judgment.

The investigation report took the view that Sylvester had persistently used the incorrect pronoun over a period of time, and had “unlawfully harassed” her trans colleague. It recommended that the temporary measures should remain in place and that Sylvester should be moved to another part of the university while “further relevant policies and procedures” were conducted.

Banks made it clear in his evidence that the next step would be a possible referral under the disciplinary process, but that this was up to Sylvester’s line manager and others.

‘Stood down’

On 28 April, Phillipson wrote to Sylvester informing her that she was being “stood down” from her role as co-lead of a pilot study into extended reality (XR). The respondents said this was in line with the dignity at work and study (DAWS) procedure.

Sylvester appealed the investigation outcome on 11 May. In July, she was interviewed for another role but was not selected.

The outcome of the appeal, held in September, partially upheld three of four appeal points, including that the investigation had not given enough consideration to how Sylvester’s dyspraxia might affect her ability to remember the pronoun change.

The appeal panel found that Phillipson should not have been the lead investigator, and felt that Sylvester’s removal from the team was disproportionate.

However, it still found she had breached the DAWS policy, and that CD had been subject to harassment.

In November 2023, the claimant suffered a fall and was hospitalised. She was then on sick leave until April 2024 and did not to return to work until September 2024, owing to an “agreed period of absence on full pay pending the conclusion” of a mediation process. A new role was found for Sylvester, which she agreed to take. She continues to work at the university.

The judgment said that Sylvester is happy with her colleagues in DSE. “However, she also says that her career and academic intentions have been sabotaged, and she feels like she had very little option,” said the judgment.

She was never subject to any disciplinary process relating to the CD harassment allegation. She was told in October 2024 (as part of a mediation process) that disciplinary proceedings would not be commenced.

The tribunal found that Phillipson should never have been the lead investigator, as he was not independent of either CD or Sylvester.

‘Worst possible picture’

The judgment said: “Whilst the respondents say that the facts were all agreed and there was no need to interview anyone or take statements, there were some important nuances in the evidence. We find that the way the findings have been presented in the investigation report paints the worst possible picture of the claimant. They have left out details in the evidence which would have painted the claimant in a better light.”

The panel said it was hampered by the fact that no one in the course of the investigation or appeal had actually asked CD how many times he was misgendered by Sylvester. The panel said: “We find that the claimant had probably misgendered CD more than four times but that it was unlikely to have been as frequently as the respondents now assert (18 times).” They did however find that, on balance, Sylvester did persistently misgender CD.

Finding in favour of Sylvester’s discrimination claim, the tribunal judge said that Sylvester had used the incorrect pronoun because of her dyspraxia. Her condition meant that “it took longer for her to consistently adopt the correct pronouns compared to a neurotypical person”.

The tribunal found Phillipson and Banks personally liable for both the indirect discrimination claim and the complaint of discrimination arising from disability. It did not accept that they had been led to believe by their employer that they had done nothing wrong.

Victimisation and harassment claims failed and were dismissed.

In the remedy judgment published last week, the tribunal panel unanimously agreed that the respondents in the case should pay Sylvester: £35,000 for injury to feelings, including a sum for aggravated damages; £7,000 for a 20% Acas uplift; and £9,200 in interest. The total amounted to £51,200.

This article was originally published on 13 January 2026 and was updated on 13 July after details of the remedy were released.

 

 

Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today

Browse more human resources jobs