A council worker who protested against the use of woke pronouns has been hit with a £12,000 legal bill.

Jim Orwin lost his job when he refused to use ‘acceptable’ pronouns such as he/him and instead used the words ‘XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale’ to the end of his emails.

The ICT project officer was suspended and eventually sacked by East Riding of Yorkshire Council in 2022 when he refused to change the sign-off.

In May he took the authority to a tribunal, saying they had discriminated against his beliefs and he had been unfairly dismissed as if he had remained silent he would have ‘facilitated the steady creep of evil’.

Although the panel dismissed his case and found he was not discriminated against, it did accept his gender-critical beliefs amounted to a protected ‘philosophical belief within the meaning of section 10 of the Equality Act 2010’.

But now Mr Orwin has forced to pay the council £12,000 after an employment judge ruled his tribunal claim was ‘vexatious’.

The row started when an email was sent out to all staff by East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s chief executive Caroline Lacey in April 2022, urging them to ‘consider adding pronouns’ to their emails.

Staff were told that it was an ‘individual choice’ and were given links to websites which offered explanations as to why such words could be used.

The tribunal heard the reason for bringing in the policy was to ‘promote inclusion of people who identify their gender in a way that is not necessarily consistent with their biological sex’.

However, after receiving the email, Mr Orwin ‘quickly formed the view’ it had been done to ‘facilitate self-identification.’

He told the hearing: ‘Had the email contained a genuine invitation simply for colleagues to add pronouns to email signatures and not facilitated self-identification I would have chosen the ‘Do not show’ option not to display pronouns.

‘It is my firm belief that announcing pronouns in emails or before meetings is a political gesture designed to intimidate anyone who does not embrace the contested ideology of gender identity.’

He ‘interpreted’ the email to allow employees to add their own pronouns rather than having to choose from a list.

Therefore, he decided to add the words ‘XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale’ and following this he contacted his manager to give him ‘advanced notice’.

When he was asked why he simply couldn’t choose the ‘other’ option of pronouns, Mr Orwin said: ‘Not adding a pronoun would be accepting this garbage and is not an option I can choose.’

The tribunal heard how Mr Orwin thought the only way to challenge the policy was to ‘adopt deliberately provocative pronouns’.

However, he was told his choices were unacceptable as they ‘may be deemed offensive to others’.

He carried on defying orders to remove them, claiming it was ‘unlawful discrimination’ and in August 2022 was summoned to a disciplinary hearing.

He said he wouldn’t back down as it was ‘all about principles’ and was sacked.

Mr Orwin, from Hull, said that four different employment judges dealt with the various stages of the tribunal process and that it was never suggested that his claim was vexatious.

He said: ‘Not one of the judges, nor the Council’s legal team, so much as suggested that possibility. The word was never mentioned.

‘The first suggestion that my claim might be considered vexatious was in the Council’s recent costs application. I understand that it is not unusual for employers who succeed in defending claims in the employment tribunal to submit a costs application, but the general principle in employment tribunals is that each party is responsible for its own legal costs. In his costs order, the judge said I pursued the case because I found the concept of gender self-identification objectionable, which I think any reasonable person would consider to be entirely consistent with holding gender-critical beliefs, and therefore not vexatious at all.

‘Those who share gender-critical beliefs must be able to bring legitimate claims of belief discrimination to the Employment Tribunal without the threat of sanctions being imposed on them simply because of their protected beliefs.

‘I think in the current climate, most of the British public will see this costs order judgment as yet another example of a two-tier judiciary, and somewhat inconsistent with the Employment Tribunal’s duty of political impartiality.’

The tribunal found Mr Orwin’s ‘gender-critical belief’ constitutes a ‘philosophical belief’.

However, Employment Judge Ian Miller concluded he had not been discriminated against by being told to change his pronouns.

He said: ‘The real reason that [Mr Orwin] decided to add ‘XY-chromosome-guy/adult-human-male’ was in protest.’

Mr Miller added: ‘The footer was designed to provoke and, we think given his acceptance of possible offence, was designed to offend.’

The judge said the implementation of the policy was ‘poorly thought through and badly executed’.

Dismissing his claims of discrimination, he said: ‘None of the treatment he experienced was because of his beliefs (or expression of beliefs).

His claim of unfair dismissal was also dismissed as it was ‘well within the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer’.

Awarding costs, the judge found that Mr Orwin pursued the claim ‘solely’ because he ‘found objectionable both the concept of gender self-identification and the council’s decision to adopt a policy that indicated they believed the ideology of gender self-identification to be valid.’

Mr Orwin has now launched a crowdfunding bid to raise the cash for the council’s costs.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council has been approached for comment.