An ex-teacher is taking legal action against the U.K. government after he was prohibited from working with children due to allegations of misgendering a student, the Daily Mail reported.
The case by Kevin Lister, 61, centers on his refusal to address the female student by male pronouns and a male name without the consent of the student’s parents, according to the outlet. He argues the decision not only imposes severe personal and professional restrictions on him but also conflates his actions with those of individuals posing significant threats to children. The suit has gone up to the superior court, according to the outlet.
“My appeal has gone into the upper tribunal against the DBS Barring me for following safeguarding policies at New College Swindon,” Lister said on X (formerly Twitter).
Lister was terminated from a further education college and subsequently placed on the “Children’s Barred List” by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS justified the action by accusing Lister of endangering the student’s welfare through conduct which allegedly caused “distress” and “emotional harm,” the outlet reported.
My appeal has gone into the upper tribunal against the DBS Barring me for following safeguarding policies at New College Swindon.
https://t.co/VCyrFedujl via https://t.co/KQzCxxcV8d— Kevin Lister (@KevsTribulation) January 21, 2024
The legal challenge, represented by attorney Anna Loutfi, aims to overturn the DBS’s decision. Lister asserts the authority’s ruling infringes on the Equality Act 2010 by discriminating against his belief that biological sex is immutable, the outlet reported. He is framing the action as a broader fight for the rights of teachers to express gender-critical views without facing punitive measures, according to the outlet. (RELATED: Watch The Moment Teen Receives Life Sentence For Murdering Teacher Over Bad Grade)
In response, the DBS clarified its stance, emphasizing its role in enforcing safeguarding policies within educational settings, according to the outlet. The service maintained that its barring decisions are based on comprehensive evaluations of potential harm, including psychological impact, and are not limited to instances of physical abuse, the outlet noted.