Employment Tribunal finds NB does not meet PC of GR

The mandatory training at my employer (NHS Trust) includes some very ideology-heavy equality and human rights modules. One lists not making eye contact as a micro aggression. An autistic doctor raised that this was potentially discriminatory towards autistic staff a year ago, but it still hasn't been changed. This individual, however got non stop apologies and an endless power trip for her made up identity.

And the appointment was cancelled and assigned to someone else! I guess the patient probably dodged a bullet, but it's extraordinary that patient care was a lower priority than an entitled therapist's feelings.

I can't get over any of it. All those people bending over backwards to apologise and make amends, and being required to work towards an 'optional' rainbow pledge, when they shouldn't have had to, and in circumstances where noone had done anything actually deliberately wrong.

People who solicit and seem to 'collect' apologies generally get on my wick. But that damned Heech's demands for better and different apologies over and over again is completely batshit.

Is this the start of employers being able to sack vexatious employees . And make the power play of TRAs a disciplinary act.

What has remained very irritating for me was that a patient seemingly requested a female therapist, and H was annoyed that she had been assigned to the patient. Because her image of herself was more important than patient comfort or consent.

I doubt the patient would have been interested in H’s self involved gender struggles, but wanted a biological woman.
In the end the patient wasn’t really bothered, if only the claimant had been more interested in patient recovery and less involved in her own image.

edited because it posted too soon!

The definition of GR in the Act is only to try to spell out an unlawful ground of discrimination. It isn't supposed to be a generalized definition with any applicability outside of that specific Act.

I don't think I agree that it doesn't cover anyone. There are a bunch of people it very clearly does cover - and a bunch of people it very clearly doesn't. Then there are some arguable cases who should be covered and aren't, and perhaps shouldn't be covered and are.

Maybe one can understand "for the purpose of reassigning their sex" as meaning "for the individually satisfying but ultimately futile purpose of reassigning their sex". It doesn't have to be physically or legally possible - it can still be the protected person's purpose.

This is the point

• No case
• Illogical
• Not founded in law
• And literally hysterical- oh I requested my files & they sent me a contract I signed in my ‘deadname’ so I committed my own offense but blame them for not doctoring the contract
• But someone actually funded this nonsense despite no protected characteristic

Sandie & the Darlington nurses were chased by their unions - and they had cause and a protected characteristic

The ideology is rooted in power structures and access to money. F@ckers.

Oh no, you know that means I'm now going to have to go and read all the TTs and the many threads... it sounds juicy!

I'm only on page 10 of the tribunal decision and realise I'm way behind but I just want to say the woman complaining needs a bloody good shake. Is there anything she doesn't take offence at?

Main character syndrome is strong in they/them!

Did someone say Bundle?

That's good. The more awareness the better of how some people are weaponising NB and other false "identities" to intimidate colleagues and make the workplace a hostile environment.

If I found a colleague taping paper over a window so another colleague couldn't see them I would be insisting on driving them home immediately and watching them call their GP and the Crisis Team.

That person absolutely did not appear mentally well enough to be at work. Any sort of work, let alone providing mental health therapy to others.

I would love to know if a trade union funded the case.

And my heart sank reading it all. Must have made for very difficult working relationships.

The panel in this case seem to have decided that Taylor does not apply because claimant has not adopted any male 'attributes' and has declared that she positively intends not to. NB is her destination, not part of a spectrum along which she is travelling (para 103-104)

No time to read comments, but many many thanks for posting this info. Below is the Decision which is good to read as it shows there is still some sanity in the world. (I wish they would provide plain text versions as pdf files are terrible to copy from. But in this case worth the trouble!)

Decision

92. The claimant is non binary. Their sex at birth was female. They have no intention to transition to the male sex. They have changed their name by deed poll to Haech and live under that name. They have the preferred pronouns of they/them. The claimant intends taking no other steps to change their sex, medical or otherwise.

93. The starting point are the words of the Statute itself. The Supreme Court emphasised in For Women Scotland that “sex” within the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. As such sex is a binary concept, male and female. The question we consider that this Tribunal needs to answer in this case, is what does “for the purpose of reassigning the claimant’s sex” mean following For Women Scotland.

94. In essence, what journey does section 7 require the claimant to be on for them to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. There is no doubt that the claimant has embarked upon a journey by changing their name by deed poll, living under that name and asking that others use their preferred pronouns of they and them, but is it for the purpose of reassigning their sex?

95. The Supreme Court reminded us of the general rule that there should be a consistent meaning given to a word or term used more than once in the same legislation and that the general purpose of an interpretation provision is to fix the meaning of such word or term throughout the legislation in question. (paragraph 76). It notes than the circumstances in which that presumption may be rebutted will be rare.

96. The word “reassigning” in our view means a move from one thing to another. We have considered dictionary definitions such as in Collins: Reassign/verb (transitive)to move (personnel, resources, etc) to a new post, department, location, etc

97. It requires a from and a to. As sex is binary, that process has to be with the intention of changing from one sex to the other. In our view it is not sufficient for the claimant to be moving from away from the female sex, to qualify for the protection within section 7, they need to have the purpose of reassigning their sex to that of the opposite sex.

98. On our reading of section 7 Equality Act 2010 in light of the clear direction from the Supreme Court that sex is biological sex and as such is binary, the journey can only be from one sex to the other.

99. We consider that there is no ambiguity in section 7, such that we need to invoke Pepper v Hart and the more recent authorities in that vein. Mr Justice Chamberlain in R(AA) v NHS England was of the same view. We note particularly that the later authorities have insisted on strict observance of these conditions. As such it is not necessary for us to refer to Hansard and the debates which Ms Widdette has reminded us of.

100. We do not think that Taylor and R(AA) v NHS England assist us. Both cases were decided before For Women Scotland. In both decisions all claimants had originally sought to move from one sex to the other and the focus in both cases was upon what “proposing to undergo” meant within section 7. We consider that in this case, that is not the question we need to consider.

101. In both decisions however there is reference to moving away from birth sex, which it is appropriate that we consider. In R(AA) v NHS England, Mr Justice Chamberlian says: “The word “proposing” connotes a conscious decision, which can properly be described as settled, to adopt some aspect of the identity of a gender different from assigned at birth” (our emphasis) (though goes on to say at “(Para 33) when referring to a child satisfying the definition in section 7.. “provided they have taken a settled decision to adopt some aspect of the identity of the other gender.” (our emphasis)) and in Taylor the Tribunal refers to the process requiring a move away from birth sex.

102. The only reference that the Tribunal has found to indicate that a process to move away from birth sex is sufficient to meet the definition within section 7 (rather than it being a process to move from one sex to the other) is the EHRC Code of Practice on Employment, which the EHRC are in the process of updating following For Women Scotland and as such we consider is of limited assistance.

103. We have carefully considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland and believe that there is nothing in the judgment which suggests that our view is incorrect. Paragraph 99 of the judgment as set out above, clarifies that it is the process of reassignment which section 7 is protecting, when explaining that sex and gender reassignment are “distinct and separate bases for discrimination and inequality, giving separate protection to each”. That does not however detract from our view that the process still requires the purpose of the reassignment of sex.

104. Although the claimant has taken steps to change attributes of their sex from female, by changing their name to a name which can be identified as of either sex, and has changed their preferred pronouns, those are not in our view attributes which are for the purpose of moving from one sex to the other, they are steps in the process of moving away from the female sex to a different gender identity, ie that of non binary. The claimant is not proposing, nor do they intend to take any steps to reassign their sex from that of female to male.

105. We therefore find that the claimant does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

106. Although having made this finding, it is not incumbent upon is to consider the harassment complaint, we have done so at the request of the parties.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6926ec33a245b0985f0340aa/HaechLockwood_vCheshireandWirralNHSFoundationTrustandothers2401211202424071782024.pdf

DM clearly read on here.

Non-binary NHS worker sues Trust after being 'dead named' and mis-pronouned, but judges say they don't have to take offence at everything!

https://share.google/1E5ZrHVUtboUss4Iv

A considerable number of cases where people have been discriminated against for their GC beliefs revolve at least in part around “enbies”.

Roz Adams
Jo Phoenix
Maya Forstater

and mentioned in others

Make of that what you will

I think I might be assuming a level of coherence in RMW's views that doesn't exist. I have heard him arguing about the relevance of surgery, but had forgotten about RMW's involvement in the code of practice that banned the 'misgendering' of rapists with sudden onset post arrest gender dysphoria.