A Fair Employment Tribunal has dismissed all claims brought by Sara O'Gorman (Morrison) against Belfast Film Festival Limited, ruling that she was not discriminated against, harassed, or constructively dismissed on the ground of her political opinion. The unanimous decision, issued under case references 83/23FET and 17/25FET, was reached by Employment Judge Sturgeon and panel member Mr M McKeown.

O'Gorman (Morrison) had been employed as Inclusion/Audience Development Co-ordinator with Belfast Film Festival Limited from 12 February 2020. She resigned on 26 November 2024. Her claims centred on events following her speech at a Let Women Speak rally held at Donegal Quay in Belfast on 16 April 2023. The rally, led by activist Kellie-Jay Keen, attracted a counter-demonstration from LGBTQIA+ groups. The parties agreed that O'Gorman (Morrison)'s gender-critical beliefs constituted a political opinion for the purposes of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

The claimant's first set of proceedings, lodged in October 2023, alleged direct discrimination and harassment on the ground of political opinion. A second claim, lodged in January 2025, added constructive dismissal and further allegations of discrimination and harassment. A protected disclosure claim was withdrawn before the hearing.

The hearing ran over eight days in November 2025. Two recusal applications were made on behalf of the claimant during proceedings. A panel member, Professor Deborah Boyd, stood down on health grounds. Applications for Employment Judge Sturgeon and Mr McKeown to recuse themselves on grounds of apparent bias were refused. A second application, seeking the recusal of Mr McKeown on the basis of his former membership of the NIPSA union, was also refused.

The tribunal found that the acts complained of - which included a board member's internal email, a public statement posted on X, the initiation of a disciplinary investigation, the payment of statutory sick pay, the removal of the claimant's name from a festival programme, and requests for the return of office keys - arose from operational requirements, stakeholder concerns, contractual obligations, and administrative processes rather than from the claimant's political opinion. On each complaint, the tribunal concluded that a hypothetical employee in the same role, without the claimant's political opinion, would not have been treated more favourably in comparable circumstances.

On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had not breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found that the respondent's public statement on X did not identify the claimant, did not prejudge any investigation, and was issued in response to stakeholder concerns. It further found that the disciplinary investigation, though initiated, did not proceed beyond an initial stage and was paused following the claimant's grievance submission. No investigation meeting took place and no findings were made before the claimant resigned.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not sought permission from her employer before speaking at the rally, as required under her contract of employment, and that Michele Devlin had not been aware of the claimant's intention to attend or address the event. It noted that Michele Devlin, by contrast, had sought Board approval before taking part in a political campaign in 2022. The tribunal accepted that the controversy following the rally arose from the claimant's public participation in it, but found that the respondent's subsequent actions were directed at managing stakeholder relationships and reputational concerns rather than at the claimant's political opinion itself. All claims were dismissed in their entirety.