A publisher who claimed she was “hounded out” of her job for holding gender-critical beliefs has reached a legal settlement with Hachette UK.
Ursula Doyle, who worked at the company for over a decade, brought a claim of belief-based and sex discrimination after facing backlash for publishing Material Girls, a 2021 book by the philosopher Kathleen Stock, which questions the idea that gender identity should override biological sex in law and policy.
Doyle resigned from her role as editorial director of Fleet, an imprint she founded in 2016, claiming the company had failed to protect her from abuse and had allowed a hostile culture to develop. Her legal case was funded by more than £63,000 in donations from supporters.
Following her resignation, she alleged that colleagues repeatedly targeted her online, accusing her of transphobia and tagging both Hachette and its Pride network in public posts. She said the company did nothing to intervene.
In a statement confirming the settlement, Doyle said: “In bringing this case, I hoped to demonstrate conclusively that employers cannot allow staff to be subjected to abuse because of their lawful views, nor ignore women’s rights to single-sex spaces.”
While Hachette has not admitted liability, the company has agreed to review its Trans Inclusion and Transitioning at Work Policy within the next three months. Doyle had singled out that policy as one of the main drivers of her claim, arguing that it “explicitly allows men who say they are women to use women’s toilets and shower facilities”.
She also claimed that Hachette undermined her authority as a publisher by moving paperback editions of certain authors’ books away from her imprint following complaints that her views were ‘transphobic’. That decision, she said, harmed her professional reputation both inside and outside the company.
Fleet, under Doyle’s leadership, had published a number of major prizewinning authors. But following the publication of Material Girls, she said she became increasingly isolated within the organisation and eventually developed stress-related health conditions that led to her resignation.
Doyle’s case has drawn wider attention due to its implications for freedom of expression in the publishing industry. In a crowdfunding appeal launched last year, she warned that gender-critical writers often struggle to find publishers, and that authors on unrelated topics face professional risk if they speak out.
“When you consider the impact these books have had on the conversations around sex and gender, it is easy to understand why publishing has been a key strategic target for gender identity activists,” she wrote. “Their attempts to suppress all dissent at source have made the sector a hostile environment for anyone who dares to stand up for reality and freedom of expression.”
Since the launch of the Free Speech Union in 2020, a growing number of authors have sought its advice and support, among them Julie Burchill, Helen Joyce, Holly Lawford-Smith, Allison Pearson, Gillian Philip and Sibyl Ruth. More than 250 authors are now members.
We’ve repeatedly raised concerns about the climate for free expression in publishing, highlighting the rise of morality clauses in contracts, the use of sensitivity readers to vet manuscripts, and the quiet removal of material deemed likely to cause offence. Authors have also reported books being denied shelf space or kept out of sight by booksellers unwilling to be seen promoting them. Some have even been disinvited from literary festivals after objections from sponsors, venue staff or fellow writers.
These developments reflect a growing tendency within the industry to prioritise reputational risk management over the principle of free inquiry, with serious implications for writers, publishers and readers alike.
For Doyle, the personal cost of that climate has been severe. She described her departure from the industry as personally devastating, saying the job had brought her “great satisfaction” and the chance to work with “some brilliant authors and colleagues”.
“The last five years have been taxing – emotionally, professionally and, latterly, financially,” she said. “My health and my peace of mind have both suffered.”
Despite that toll, she said she remained committed to the principle of sex-based rights in law and policy.
“The battle for sex realism continues,” she said. “In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the For Women Scotland case, I am hopeful that UK employers are beginning to realise that a policy they might have adopted in good faith and with the best intentions might have unforeseen consequences which harm women.”
There’s more on this story here.
