Transwoman awarded £9k for sex discrimination

[jadefinch]

A transwoman has been awarded £9k after claiming they failed to get a job at Debenhams because they're trans (and used sex discrimination legislation!).

The only evidence they had of discrimination was an 'anonymous email'.

Their story doesn't make much sense - who asks to see a birth certificate at an interview? Other comments they've given to the media about people in a canteen gawping seem to contradict their claim that there was no transphobia during the interview, and Debenhams paid on the basis that they accept 'no liability'.

There's also claims on Facebook that this person was recently caught on CCTV stealing.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7894413/Transgender-woman-Ava-Moore-Newry-Northern-Ireland-gets-9-000-settlement-Debenhams.html

What I dont understand is that in the reports I have read they say the settlement / possible court case was about sex discrimination. And yet the narrative is that the prejudice was about being trans.

So how come they said it was sex discrimination.

Surely it would be the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

If there is no gender reassignment they effectively the case being accepted as sex discrimination is saying self identity is now recognised as meaning you have changed sex.

Wasn't the annoymous email about being rejected because of trans discimination.

Totally confused.

This is basically going to force employers to hire trans people over non trans

Or perhaps it’ll just make employers realise that they will have to give trans people the same consideration as other applicants. It is totally possible that this person was discriminated against. If she was, why shouldn’t she persue a claim?

If she was, why shouldn’t she persue a claim?

Why would this person accept such a low settlement if they really were the victim of discrimination?
And why would they go to the press?

Why would this person accept such a low settlement if they really were the victim of discrimination?

Well presumably for exactly the same reason that Debenhams might have decided to settle. To avoid high legal costs/expenses. But also to avoid the stress and uncertainty of going through a tribunal. Plus the possibility that you might lose at the end of it all.

Also £9000 might be quite a significant amount of money to this person. It might not be far off what she would have been awarded they’d gone through the courts. Also courts and tribunals prefer that parties attempt to settle. It saves everyone time and money.

Why would this person accept such a low settlement if they really were the victim of discrimination?

Because it isn't a low settlement in the circumstances of applying for but not getting a job.

It is hard to tell when nuisance cases like this start coming up and are settled without a hearing whether it is a sign of a new grift or a sign of widespread employment discrimination. Or both. Time will tell.

It is hard to tell when nuisance cases like this start coming up

You have no grounds whatsoever for dismissing this as a "nuisance case" other than your own prejudice.

The person in question may well be, as some posters are trying to make out, overly entitled, self- important or arrogant. That does not preclude the possibility that she was discriminated against and not offered the job because she was trans.

A transgender woman has won a £9,000 settlement from Debenhams after a sex discrimination case.

She believes she performed well during the interview but there was a 'change in atmosphere' after she handed over her birth certificate, which stated her gender history.

Sounds like they wanted a woman, maybe for the lingerie section or something, and discriminated on the basis that Ava is male.

Sex was the protected characteristic. So Ava was treated like any other male, which, in this case, was discriminatory.

So how is it about them being trans?

FYI "The term nuisance lawsuit can refer to one of two types of lawsuits. The first is a tort lawsuit of the nuisance, which is a situation wherein the plaintiff claims that the defendant is causing a nuisance. The second is a frivolous lawsuit. A frivolous lawsuit involves a plaintiff bringing a lawsuit that serves as nothing more than a nuisance to the defendant."

Given that it would be impossible for the interviewee to prove that they were passed over for the reason they cite the only possible conclusion is that it is a frivolous suit intended to publicly embarrass the company. Which is why they are referred to as nuisance suits.

That is the basis for my opinion on the matter.
Their gender status is beside the point, unless as Datun mentions they were applying for employment in an area where sex is a protected characteristic.

So how is it about them being trans?

Do you have any reason to think Debenhams were looking fo a person for the “lingerie section” or did you just make that up?

Given that it would be impossible for the interviewee to prove that they were passed over for the reason they cite

Unless perhaps there was an anonymous email stating why Ava didn’t get the job.

Do you have any reason to think Debenhams were looking fo a person for the “lingerie section” or did you just make that up?

The reason i speculated 'maybe for the lingerie section or something' is because the complaint was brought based on sex discrimination.

Despite employing men all the time, it appears they specifically wanted a female.

I can't think of many other roles in a shop where a specific sex might be an advantage. If any.

If nobody knows who sent this email, is it not possible that Ava sent it herself? Where's the proof with any of this? I could look at Debenhams settling as acceptance of guilt, but I could also look at it as a giant shaking off a flea and moving on with life. Nothing proves anything. Its possible Ava was discriminated against, its also entirely possible that the person who got the job was just better than Ava. I see no proof of anything. All I see is a company who will now be expected to positively discriminate in favour of one group, or else.

Well, a claimant need not have any legal costs in tribunal. You can represent yourself easily and there are TONS of charities who represent at tribunal on discrimination cases. I'd imagine there are very very many who do it for trans people.

£9k is low. It might be a lot to this person but for a discrimination claim, it's low. It's literally only just outside the low scale in Vento. And that's only one part of the claim, there is the compensatory award as well:

www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/hr-hub/injury-to-feelings-awards-updated-Vento-guidelines-April-2018

I wonder where the law would stand if a shop knew that employing a transwoman might damage their sales?

If the trans woman was the most qualified person for the job, the law would obviously back the trans person as this would be discrimination based on gender reassignment.

Also, I don’t think most people (even if you don’t think people can change sex) see trans women as “blatantly mocking women’s appearance”.

I don’t use makeup but I’m certain that the presence of a trans woman behind a makeup counter wouldn’t put me off purchasing my powder puff.

The reason i speculated 'maybe for the lingerie section or something' is because the complaint was brought based on sex discrimination.

If it was brought on sex discrimination, this seems most likely. Of course, entirely possible it's poor reporting as all the articles seemed to be churned off each other.

If the trans woman was the most qualified person for the job, the law would obviously back the trans person as this would be discrimination based on gender reassignment.

But that's just it. If the presence of a transgender woman is going to damage sales, they might well be the best qualified for the job but they aren't going to be the best fit for the job if they drive away customers. So on the one hand they have been discriminated against but on the other, how can a business function if they can't maximise their sales?

This is where our very strict recruitment laws fall down a little bit. My HR manager, in a previous job, once had to appoint someone who had been incredibly verbally abusive to a staff member when they came for interview, thinking she was the receptionist, and therefore not deserving of his respect. When they entered the actual interview room and the questioning started, he was head and shoulders above other candidates using the scoring matrix, so he had to be offered the job, which he took. The organisation then lost loads of staff in the coming years due to his temper and bullying, and he cost them a fortune. But their hands were tied by the recruitment process, because they were following the correct law. They knew as soon as they met him that he would be trouble, but they had to leave aside everything that happened outside of the interview.

My HR manager, in a previous job, once had to appoint someone who had been incredibly verbally abusive to a staff member when they came for interview

I’m sorry I just can’t even believe this. If a interviewee is verbally abusive to staff at interview this would be a perfectly valid reason to not employ them whatever their protected status.

And your example of a company believing a trans woman would not be “the best fit for a job” on a make up counter because “they are going to drive customers away” is the exact reason that discrimination laws exist. Any company that believes something like that deserves to be sued.

This doesn’t surprise me at all.

A friend of mine works with a transwoman who only got the job because they threatened discrimination.

They were rejected based on their experience, poor referenced and there being a much better candidate but after being rejected they threatened discrimination and hired a solicitor and started making a fuss on SM about how they were told they job was theirs until their trans status was revealed and then they were rejected, which was absolute rubbish, but the TRA keyboard warriors jumped on it, so for an easy life the company bosses relented and gave the TW the job.

My friend says they are absolutely terrible at the job and don’t even try, but swan around the office like they are untouchable, the manager wants to fire the TW due to poor performance but the company directors are having to seek legal advice so that discrimination isn’t threatened again.

It’s utterly ridiculous.

Of course, entirely possible it's poor reporting as all the articles seemed to be churned off each other

Yes especially considering how often the press confuse sex and gender.

VanGoghsDog I thought it seemed low too - even for a minimum wage job. I presume by settling for that amount it means they weren’t confident of winning.

I’m sorry I just can’t even believe this. If a interviewee is verbally abusive to staff at interview this would be a perfectly valid reason to not employ them whatever their protected status.

You can disbelieve it if you want, but that doesn't mean it's not true. It's on the Equality Commissions own website that the recruitment process can only be based on what is said at interview, nothing else. Anyone who has ever sat on an interview panel in N Ireland, particularly in the public sector, could probably give you half a dozen similar examples.

They weren't verbally abusive in the interview, they were verbally abusive when they came to the interview. As in when they came into the office and were asked to take a seat and wait.

They weren't verbally abusive in the interview, they were verbally abusive when they came to the interview. As in when they came into the office and were asked to take a seat and wait

Yes I understand what you wrote. And this would have been a valid reason to not employ them and also to not even interview them. Any decent company will have a zero tolerance policy to verbal abuse of their staff.