Summary

My name is Eleanor Frances and I was forced out of the Civil Service after whistleblowing about discrimination and breaches of impartiality on sex and gender issues.

What happened

I joined the Civil Service five years ago, having previously completed a PhD in Engineering and worked as a chartered engineer. I was employed by what was then the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and later by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). I managed a team of policy officials and worked with government ministers. I was successful in my role, and I ‘exceeded’ expectations in my performance reviews.

Civil servants are bound by a strict duty of impartiality. I was proud to fulfil this duty, and it was fundamental to my work. However, I became increasingly concerned about what I saw as significant breaches of impartiality, and discrimination on the basis of sex, belief, and other protected characteristics. I raised formal concerns to my department’s leadership, in which I cited:

• A politicised 'climate of fear’ around Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), with the risk of negative professional consequences for civil servants who questioned the institutional position on issues such as sex and gender;
• The adoption of an internal ‘Gender Identity and Intersex’ policy, without proper consultation, following a Stonewall workplace assessment;
• The policy’s use of politicised language and concepts – for example, defining ‘transphobia’ as ‘including the denial/refusal to accept,’ someone’s gender identity, and thereby compelling civil servants to recognise male people as women;
• The introduction of ‘self-identification’ in government premises, allowing any male person to access female single-sex facilities, with the threat of disciplinary action against any women who might object;
• The use of ‘EDI assessments’ in recruitment and promotion to the Senior Civil Service;
• Another serious breach of impartiality in which several senior civil servants were implicated.

I believe that the Civil Service’s approach to sex and gender issues is not impartial. Government departments officially adopted internal policies which took one side of a major political controversy, and which compelled civil servants to do the same. In doing so, they compromised the privacy, dignity and safety of female staff.

DCMS conducted its own internal investigations. After repeated delays, the department eventually informed me that there had been no discrimination and no breaches of impartiality, and denied that my fears were reasonable. I challenged these findings, citing a number of serious failings in the process and decision, but my appeal was dismissed.

I also sent a letter to the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case and numerous Permanent Secretaries, on behalf of 42 civil servants who shared my concerns. The response – sent over two months later by the Government Chief People Officer, Fiona Ryland – advised signatories to follow the same departmental processes which had done nothing to resolve my earlier complaint. 

After raising concerns, I believe that I was subjected to a sustained pattern of unfair treatment. I was given baseless negative performance feedback, and stripped of my team and responsibilities by the same individuals I had named in my complaint. Senior leaders refused to intervene. Ultimately, I concluded that I had no choice but to resign from my role, ending my career in the Civil Service.

What happens next

I am now taking DCMS and DSIT to an employment tribunal, claiming discrimination on the grounds of philosophical belief, sex and disability, along with victimisation, protected disclosure detriment and unfair constructive dismissal. My solicitor is Peter Daly at Doyle Clayton, and Counsel is Akua Reindorf KC.

Based on the detailed advice I have received, I am confident that I have a strong case. I am aware that all discrimination claims are difficult to win, and that there will be (as is always the case in litigation) a great deal of information provided in disclosure of which I am currently unaware. But the facts of the case, such as they are known to me now, present good prospects of success.

In an attempt to avoid litigation, I offered to settle my claim for £1 in damages, plus costs, asking only that my employers acknowledge the issues I had raised, apologise, and work with the relevant regulators to address them. This offer was ignored.

What happens next

I am seeking to raise an initial target of £5,000. This will contribute towards legal costs incurred in reviewing the Respondents’ pleadings and attending a preliminary hearing on 24th April.

I will provide updates on further steps when we know more. As a minimum, these steps will include: disclosure, preparing witness statements, and reviewing the other sides’ documents and witness statements – as well as the trial itself. I have set an initial stretch target of £40,000 towards the next stages in the process.

Thank you for any contribution you can give, and please do share this page.