A SCOTTISH teacher has lost a discrimination case she brought against her school’s head claiming she was targeted for being a Unionist.
Lyndsay Gibb, who works at Stranraer Academy in Dumfries and Galloway, had accused headteacher Alicia Reid of having a “personal vendetta” against her because of her support for the Union.
However, a tribunal dismissed the case, saying that Reid did not even know about Gibb’s political views.
Gibb had sued Dumfries and Galloway Council, but a Glasgow Employment Tribunal ruled that her belief in the Union “does not amount to a philosophical belief within the meaning of Section 10(2) of the Equality Act 2010”.
READ MORE: Unionist meltdown over 'fraud' after poll shows independence support at 56 per cent
“In any event, the claimant has not otherwise succeeded in establishing that she has been discriminated against or harassed because of her beliefs. This claim is therefore dismissed,” Employment Judge M Robison added in the ruling.
The tribunal report says that Gibb “describes herself as ‘a proud Scot and a proud Brit’”, going on: “She is currently a member of the Conservative party. This is particularly because of its allegiance to Unionism.
“The claimant has in the past voted Labour. It is not important to her if the next government is Labour or Conservative. Because she is opposed to an independent Scotland, she would not vote for political parties which support it, in particular the SNP.”
Gibb was noted to have campaigned for No during the 2014 referendum, and for pro-Union parties around other election periods. Outwith these times, the tribunal said, she made her views known through social media.
One post which was quoted accused the SNP of making “uncosted promises of a land of milk and honey post-Scexit”, saying they had forced her “to become a tactical voter for the party most likely to keep Scotland away from the terrifying cliff-edge of separation”.
Gibb's voting Conservative was apparently the subject of a joke at another teacher's retirement party in 2019. "The joke was well-received by the company," the judgment said.
The tribunal ruling said that “references to her beliefs in social media is not sufficient to give her belief the necessary level of cogency, seriousness and cohesion required” to be protected in law.
“It cannot be said that it is in any way has a status similar to a religious belief,” the ruling said.
The tribunal, which concluded earlier in December, said ultimately “that any treatment of the claimant at the hands of Ms Reid, perceived or actual, was nothing whatsoever to do with her beliefs”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel