Another legal attack on the Equality Act

32 replies

christinarossetti19 · 21/09/2020 09:47

www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/gender-fluid-non-binary-workers-protected-under-equality-act-landmark-ruling-shows?utm_source

Of course this employee shouldn't have been subjected to abusive jokes and insults, but equally the organisation should have dealt with this under harassment policies.

Instead, the Equality Act has been interpreted in Employment Law to include non-binary and gender fluid because even the govt agrees that 'gender is a spectrum'.

Barrister is Robin Moira White, a transgender person.

OP posts:

Original poster

christinarossetti19 · 21/09/2020 10:56

Scout2016 this is one of the problems stemming from the wording of the 2010 Act - it says "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

Within gender ideology, 'attributes of sex' has come to include men wearing a dress, make-ups, heels etc.

The terms non-binary and gender fluid are, I would say, almost the opposite to gender reassignment (if you're non-binary or flit between different gender identities, what on earth to you transition from and to), which did in the 2010 EA acknowledge the reality of there being two sexes.

But ten years of gender ideology has made us lose sight of that.

OP posts:

Muttonindistress · 21/09/2020 10:49

I don’t understand why this wouldn’t be covered by plain old sex discrimination law. A woman could wear trousers to work some days and a skirt on others, make-up some days and not on others and no one would think twice about it - so why shouldn’t a man do the same?

Original poster

christinarossetti19 · 21/09/2020 10:48

Unfortunately, I don't think it is fairly meaningless.

It's another misuse of the Equality Act to extend its protections to men.

OP posts:

Melroses · 21/09/2020 10:44

It is only the bottom end of an Employment tribunal so will not form any precedent. You have to take the point of law through the court system for that. It is just a judgement on a case, that the employer just doesn't think it financially worthwhile to pursue it any further through the legal system.

Scout2016 · 21/09/2020 10:36

I don't get the bit about awarding higher compensation "because of respondent’s complete failure to comply with the Acas Code of Practice in relation to the claimant’s grievance about short-term measures to assist her transitioning,”

There isn't "a transition", as such, is there? Do they think the claimant is undergoing some sort of process that has any kind of end point? That's not my understanding of gender fluid and non binary, but maybe I have the wrong idea.

Escapeplanning · 21/09/2020 10:18

It's fairly meaningless really.

WootMoggie · 21/09/2020 10:15

It’s regrettable that JLR seem to have caved in and say they will improve - rather than appealing.

Why any tribunal would accept that non-binary or gender fluid is covered by gender reassignment is beyond me - since the Equality Act specifies it in terms of changing ones attributes of sex - not gender identity.

It should have been appealed. At least being merely a tribunal it doesn’t set legal precedent (as far as I am aware).

Unflip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread