Transwoman wins employment discrimination case against NHS for being treated differently from women in changing room

[Clymene]

I thought there was a thread on this but I can't find it. Maybe it was deleted? I shall choose my words very carefully.

The court found that the unnamed employee had been discriminated against because they were asked questions that a woman would not have been about whether they had been undressed in the communal women's changing area.

Judge Davies said: 'A concern about the woman's state of undress in the changing rooms was likely to be connected with the fact that she is a transgender woman.
'This was a communal changing room with a shower cubicle. It did not seem to the Tribunal likely that there would have been a concern about a cisgender woman in a state of undress while changing in such a changing room.
'The Tribunal therefore concluded that [the manager] asked the questions because of a concern that the woman as a transgender woman might be in a state of undress in the female changing room.
There were also several serious allegations against several female co-workers but while the Trust accepts these incidents happened, no perpetrators were ever identified.

There were a number of other complaints but they were dismissed by the Court.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11027471/Trans-NHS-worker-wins-discrimination-case-confronted-underwear.html

I am sure I'm not alone in finding this story very disturbing.

I think (and again IANAL), they couldn't find on that basis. The claimant had bought a slew of complaints against the Trust and colleagues and the only one upheld was not about them exposing genitalia but that they were questioned about it. And that a woman wouldn't have been.

Happened as described above. Was not because of disability, did not relate to sex and was not of a sexual nature. Was because of gender reassignment. The Tribunal concluded that this was less favourable treatment and was detrimental. The Claimant was asked personal and embarrassing questions in a relatively formal work meeting in front of a colleague. That is detrimental. This complaint of less favourable treatment because of gender reassignment therefore succeeds.

All of the complaints were on the following grounds: direct gender reassignment discrimination, direct disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, harassment related to gender reassignment, harassment related to disability, harassment related to sex or of a sexual nature, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability and victimisation

@Hearach15 - if you haven't read the judgement, you might want to.

That’s the crux of it. The court thought that the question was whether they were unfairly treated relative to a woman behaving the same way.

The court actually uses the term 'cisgender woman' in the findings...

Peter Daly (employment and discrimination solicitor who was involved in Maya's case) tweeted after being asked:

'Yes, I would say so. The comparator needs all of the characteristics of the claimant except for the protected characteristic. Claimant and comparator need to be of same sex (biological, per ss.11/212). I think this judgment wrongly decided.'

-

'I don’t have an instant answer as to the effect of a GRC. But given that none is mentioned in the judgment, I don’t think it’s safe to assume C had one. It’s possible that ET was being very cautious around s.22 GRA 04. But C was anonymised and Reporting Orders were available too.'

twitter.com/peter_daly/status/1549446302286618626

Says a lot that you consider a known bully a victim in this situation.

Known bully? Not so much. Despite an “exemplary” investigation the perpetrators of the dramatic notes and the women who had the interestingly detailed conversation were never found.

I wonder if the perpetrator of the transphobic arson attack this person was previously victimised by, ever got caught?

"Co-workers even said 'that thing may rape me', an employment tribunal heard."

"The transgender woman was also left 'crying and shaking' at work after she was told in a note left in her locker to 'get out you tranny freak'."

If you excuse that behaviour then you need to go back to primary school and have someone explain to you what bullying is, why it is bad and why you should treat people with respect and kindness.

Already legalised in California, if you remember the Wi Spa case. I can't see any reason why the same thing wouldn't already be happening over here, whether legal or not. After all, we male-bodied people are already using women's facilities, and no one dares to challenge them for fear of being called transphobic (whether or not the person is transgender).

I think what this case clearly shows is that the GRA is a terrible law which causes no end of conflict with the EA and it needs scrapping.

If you excuse that behaviour

But I didn’t, did I? You need to read a lot more carefully. I was pointing out that “known bully” is incorrect. There is no known bully.

If you excuse that behaviour then you need to go back to primary school and have someone explain to you what bullying is, why it is bad and why you should treat people with respect and kindness.

Unless they’re biological women who dare to say “no”

"Co-workers even said 'that thing may rape me', an employment tribunal heard."

That was apparently said between colleagues and overheard by them, not said to them, so not bullying, although not nice. Such an odd thing for anyone to say anyway.

Say no to what? People changing next to them? No one has the right to veto someone's right to do everyday activities in a public space.

The transwomen overheard the women complaining about the fact that they had facial hair, and didn't even dress like a girl, so does this mean that this person was presenting as male, but demanding to be treated as a woman. It's not really surprising that the rest of the staff were pissed off, especially considering that despite all the accommodations that were made to treat this person as female they still couldnt resist getting their tackle out.

Women are always far more convincing initially when they become trans, so I can see why a so called butch lesbian would make some people think they are male for slightly longer than a nanosecond but we would still know they are female. You can try and convince yourself that men transitioning to women are indistinguishable from biological women, they really aren’t, no matter how much you want it to be so, that’s just the way it is, we know a man when we see one, it’s built into our DNA to recognise a male.

Such an odd thing for anyone to say anyway.

indeed. I think that the multiple female colleagues who were personally accused of saying it, even though the accusations were subsequently retracted, could make a strong case that they were bullied.

Captured.

The Tribunal found that the Claimant had a tendency to misremember the detail of events, and in many respects the detail of her evidence or the questions she asked in cross-examination was not fully consistent with the contemporaneous documents.

From the judgement. Having dealt with a vexatious complainant myself who also had a tendancy to "misremember" events I think the management did a pretty good job.

If you excuse that behaviour then you need to go back to primary school and have someone explain to you what bullying is, why it is bad and why you should treat people with respect and kindness.

Can you go and tell that to the transactivists who use threats of death and rape to try and shut women up, who make bomb threats, who doxx women and turn up outside their homes, and to the ones who get visible erections when verbally abusing and intimidating women in public?

Ta 👍

"*let's keep it as if you were born male, you're male".

Surely you mean "revert" because trans people have been allowed to be legally recognised as their true selves since the GRA was passed in 2004?

Keep up.*

Even the GRA doesn't claim that a person can ever change their biology. The GRA allows individuals to create a legal fiction about their actual sex so that under some circumstances they can expect to be treated as if they were the opposite sex. The GRA explicitly states that people with a legally fictitious sex may be excluded from rights that people of that biological sex have. The EA is even more specific about when people of the legally fictitious sex may be excluded from spaces or services intended exclusively for people of that biological sex.

Keep up.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3

Not sure why you'd think I would condone or view positively illegal behaviour.

No one has the right to veto someone's right to do everyday activities in a public space.

changing rooms are not a public space. And this person had already agreed to change in a cubicle. I’m going to keep copy-pasting that … not until it sinks in, I’m not fucking Sisyphus… but until I get bored. Which might be a while because this judgement has annoyed me a lot.

"should treat people with respect and kindness."

In what world is it showing respect to women to walk around with your male genitals on display?

Even so called "cis" women don't walk around naked from the waist down in changing rooms.
Why does respect only work in one direction?

So the TW was pissed that someone wanted to have a conversation about what they wore (or didn't wear) in a changing room and what they did with their genitals? And that they were bitched about at work?
He should be thrilled he's getting his "woman" validation! Welcome to actual women's MFing experiences.

And I agree with the poster who said that never has anyone seen my privates in a changing rooms or anywhere other than in private with my partner. This person was doing it to get their rocks off.

You may view it as a "legal fiction" but it is the law.

And the Equality Act says "discrimination can be justified if the person who's discriminating against you can show it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."

That's a high bar and feeling uncomfortable about the existence of trans people does not meet it.

Says a lot that you consider a known bully a victim in this situation.

'Known'? Who is ' known' to have had these conversations? Where is the evidence that these conversations happened? Or did the Trust simply decide to accept that they happened to avoid having to do another expensive, hostile and potentially inconclusive investigation?