Background:

The Plaintiff was dismissed from his employment at Wilsons Hospital School on 19 January 2023 due to his comments and actions regarding a transgender student enrolled in the school and the instruction that this student be referred to using the pronoun “they”. This dismissal was made pursuant to an investigation and then a disciplinary process, culminating in a disciplinary meeting on 19 January 2023 when that dismissal was effected. After this decision, the Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Teacher’s Disciplinary Appeal Panel, as is his entitlement under his terms and conditions of employment as set out in Circular Letter 0049/2018.

The Plaintiff was advised of the membership of the appeal panel, which were the three Defendants in this matter. The Plaintiff initially objected to the appointment of second and third Defendants in writing to the Department of Education, and then applied to the Court for injunctive relief preventing the panel from hearing his appeal due to bias arising from the membership of the second-named Defendant in the panel. The Plaintiff claimed that the second-named Defendant, Mr Christie, was a “promoter of transgenderism”, and that his role as General Secretary of the Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland, a union representing such teachers, also raised a real possibility of objective bias, as ASTI had supported transgenderism.

Outcome:

Mr Justice Dignam in the High Court delivered a comprehensive, 75-page judgement on the issue, considering the matter seriously and carefully. On a preliminary point, he found that he would consider the substantive appeal, despite the Plaintiff’s ongoing contempt of Court resulting in his continued imprisonment. He then considered whether the facts of the case met the test required for objective bias, which is there is a reasonable, objective apprehension or suspicion that a decision-maker was or is biased. Because the question before the Appeal Tribunal did not relate to “transgenderism”, but rather to the procedural soundness of the decision to dismiss the Plaintiff, there was no “cogent or rational link” between the grounds of alleged bias and the issue to be decided, and as a result, the injunctive relief sought was refused.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

When choosing members of an appeal panel, employers should be sure to evaluate not only whether the members are, in fact, biased, but also could appear, to a reasonable person, to be biased.

The full case is here:  
https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/b5390f92-80ee-4fec-a423-4e8174a06ef4/db7a3eb8-6e65-41f8-9476-c2af737aaaae/2023_IEHC_746.pdf/pdf