Employment Tribunal Hears Prison Officer Dismissed Over Pronoun Stance
A former prison custody officer has alleged unlawful discrimination after being dismissed for refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns for transgender detainees. David Toshack, 51, presented his case before an Edinburgh employment tribunal against security firm GeoAmey.
Key Allegations in the Case
Toshack, a retired British army medic with service in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kenya, claims he was terminated during his final probation week in January 2026. Evidence presented indicated the dismissal followed Toshack’s declaration that he would only use biological sex-based pronouns when addressing transgender prisoners.
“I maintained that truth matters,” Toshack testified. “My Christian convictions prevent me from describing a biological male as female through pronoun usage.”
Company Policy vs Personal Beliefs
Training instructor testimony described Toshack becoming visibly agitated during a session on transgender prisoner protocols. Company representatives emphasized that pronoun compliance forms part of their risk management strategy, citing an incident where a custody officer was assaulted after misgendering a self-harming detainee.
“Employee safety requires adherence to established policies,” a company representative stated. “Non-compliance creates operational risks irrespective of personal views.”
Broader Social Concerns Raised
The father of three, now working as a gardener, described his termination as ideological discrimination. He referenced his transgender daughter’s experiences during testimony, suggesting social influences rather than biological factors drive youth gender transitions.
“I want ordinary people to know they can challenge these workplace impositions,” Toshack stated. After his 12-year military medical career, this marked his first employment dismissal.
Ongoing Legal Proceedings
GeoAmey, a major UK security provider employing thousands in justice system roles, maintains the dismissal resulted from policy violations rather than belief discrimination. Tribunal proceedings continue as both parties present further evidence.
The case highlights growing tensions between workplace conduct policies and employees’ protected philosophical beliefs, with potential implications for UK employment law interpretation.
