The case concerned an employee of Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), Rose Taylor, who joined the company in 1999. Ms Taylor was considered to be a high performer and very competent at her engineering job.

By 2017, Ms Taylor had notified JLR that she was gender-fluid and transitioning, but she had no intention of undergoing surgery to reassign her gender. She retained her male birth name but chose to dress in a male style on some days and a female style on other days.

Ms Taylor was subjected to a sustained campaign of harassment on grounds of gender reassignment over a long period. Although she submitted a grievance to JLR about her treatment, the company did not take any action to prevent the discriminatory treatment from occurring or continuing. Ms Taylor’s employment by JLR ended in June 2018 shortly after she had contacted Acas to start early conciliation.

Following the ending of Ms Taylor’s employment, she brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender reassignment, and victimisation.

The key question for the Tribunal to decide was whether a non-binary, gender-fluid person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. The definition of gender reassignment in the Equality Act describes a person who is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) to reassign their sex by changing “the physiological or other attributes of sex”.

The Employment Tribunal decided that a person need not have (or intend to have) surgery in order to identify as a different gender to their birth sex. Starting to dress or behave like someone who is changing their gender or is living in the identity of the opposite sex would be sufficient to qualify for protection from gender reassignment discrimination.

We thought it was very clear that Parliament intended gender reassignment to be a spectrum moving away from birth sex, and that a person could be at any point on that spectrum. That would be so, whether they described themselves as “non-binary” i.e. not at point A or point Z, “gender fluid” i.e. at different places between point A and point Z at different times, or “transitioning” i.e. moving from point A, but not necessarily ending at point Z, where A and Z are biological sex. Employment Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal considered it appropriate to award aggravated damages in this case because of the “egregious way” in which Ms Taylor was treated and the “insensitive stance” taken by JLR during the legal proceedings. This was in addition to a 20% uplift on damages due to JLR’s “complete failure” to comply with the Acas Code of Practice when handling the grievance. The parties eventually agreed compensation of £180,000.

The Employment Tribunal was scathing of JLR’s treatment of Ms Taylor which it found to be “unconscionable”. It took pains to stress that the fault did not rest with individual managers, [...]]]> http://lawandlabour.com/gender-reassignment-includes-non-binary-and-gender-fluid-persons/feed/ 0 http://lawandlabour.com/democratic-socialism/ http://lawandlabour.com/democratic-socialism/#comments Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:37:23 +0000 http://lawandlabour.com/?p=1672 The employment tribunal has decided that a belief in democratic socialism can amount to a philosophical belief for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (the EqA).

The claimant, Mr Olivier, was dismissed from his job as a benefits advisor at the Department of Work and Pensions after he stood for election as a county councillor for the Labour Party without first seeking the permission of his employer.  He also had a letter published in a local newspaper in which he criticised the Government’s benefits policy.

Following his dismissal, he brought claims for direct discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief and for unfair dismissal.  A preliminary hearing was held to decide whether Mr Olivier’s belief in democratic socialism could amount to a religion or belief for the purposes of the EqA.

The judge relied on the definition of a philosophical belief given in the 2010 case of Grainger plc v Nicholson.  In that case it was held that a philosophical belief must:

The judge found that Mr Olivier’s belief in democratic socialism satisfied the Grainger test so as to amount to a philosophical belief for the purposes of section 10 of the EqA.  Mr Olivier’s belief was more than support for a political party, but was a personal philosophical belief.

CASE Mr C Olivier v The Department of Work and Pensions, Employment Tribunal, 23 October 2013