Gay Royal Navy officer awarded £45,000 after being forced to come out in accommodation row – The Telegraph

A gay Royal Navy officer has been awarded £45,000 after he was forced to come out following a dispute over army accommodation.

The anonymous serviceman told an employment tribunal he was discriminated against by Navy guidelines on the provision of housing for officers.

He claimed that as a result of the dispute he had to disclose his sexuality to colleagues.

He successfully argued that the Royal Navy breached the Equality Act by cutting the types of accommodation it offered single men to just one – while giving married couples the option of two to choose from.

The tribunal found that the policy would have “a disproportionate effect on the group of Service Personnel who identify as gay” as members of the LGBT+ community are “less likely to be married or in a civil partnership than heterosexual service personnel”.

‘High flyer’

The officer, described as a “high-flyer with an impressive range of skills and qualities” who displayed “consistently high performance”, was awarded £46,959 by an employment judge.

The serviceman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told the hearing: “[It] makes me feel that somehow I am sub-human and not worthy of the consideration that others would receive.”

The tribunal heard that after being assigned to the Ministry of Defence site at Abbey Wood near Bristol in July 2017, the officer applied for accommodation in central Bristol.

He said he was offered unsuitable accommodation which “failed to take proper account of his circumstances”.

Email revealing sexuality circulated to other officers

The officer – named only as XA in the tribunal’s judgment – was then faced with the “difficult” situation of explaining his sexual orientation for the first time to senior officers in the team.

He sent an email flagging the accommodation issues which was then circulated to other officers, revealing his sexual orientation against his wishes.

The Royal Navy had argued that its 2016 decision to change its housing policy had been done for cost reasons but this was rejected by the employment judge.

Employment Judge Martha Street said: “LGB service personnel were disproportionately affected by the loss of choice of substitute service accommodation imposed on those entitled to single substitute service accommodation and were disadvantaged by the lack of choice.”

The tribunal urged the MOD to take steps to ensure “compliance with their own diversity and inclusion policies”, rather than taking a “tick box” approach to equality with “no culture of understanding’.